Agenda of Council - Monday, 25 November 2024

Council

25 November 2024

Council

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Dunedin City Council held in the Council Chamber, Dunedin Public Art Gallery, The Octagon, Dunedin on Wednesday 30 October 2024, commencing at 10.03 am

PRESENT

Mayor	Mayor Jules Radich
Deputy Mayor	Cr Cherry Lucas
Members	Cr Bill Acklin	Cr Sophie Barker
	Cr David Benson-Pope	Cr Christine Garey
	Cr Kevin Gilbert	Cr Carmen Houlahan
	Cr Marie Laufiso	Cr Mandy Mayhem
	Cr Jim O'Malley	Cr Lee Vandervis
	Cr Steve Walker	Cr Brent Weatherall via zoom audio visual link
	Cr Andrew Whiley	Cr Brent Weatherall via zoom audio visual link

IN ATTENDANCE

Sandy Graham (Chief Executive Officer), Robert West (General Manager Corporate Services), Jeanette Wikaira (General Manager Arts, Culture and Recreation), Carolyn Allan (Chief Financial Officer), Scott MacLean (General Manager Climate and City Growth), David Ward (General Manager 3 Waters and Transition), Paul Henderson (Acting General Manager Customer and Regulatory), Chris Henderson (Group Manager Waste and Environmental Solutions), Leigh McKenzie (Waste Minimisation Officer), Jinty MacTavish (Principal Policy Advisor Sustainability), Heath Ellis (Acting Group Manager Parks and Recreation), John Brenkley (Planning and Partnerships Manager), Stephen Hogg (Parks and Recreation Planner), Owen Graham (Senior Leasing and Land Advisor), Tim Loan (Chair, Dunedin City Holdings Limited), Peter Hocking (General Manager, Dunedin City Holdings Limited) Clare Sullivan (Manager Governance)

Governance Support Officer Lynne Adamson

1 acknowledgement

Deputy Mayor Lucas acknowledged the recent passing of Dame Elizabeth Hanan (ex Deputy Mayor and Councillor) and acknowledged her many achievements. Cr David Benson-Pope also provided a tribute to Dame Hanan.

Council held a moments silence in recognition of Dame Elizabeth Hanan.

Opening

Poutama Crossman-Nixon opened the meeting with a prayer on behalf of the Hare Krishna group.

2 Public Forum

2.1 Tony Cumming and Lyndon Weggery, Dunedin Area Citizens Association spoke to their circulated information on the newly finished children’s play equipment at the Botanic Gardens.

Mr Cumming responded to questions.

2.2 Juliet Walker spoke on concerns with the health of the Kākā - Charlie Girl following her relocation from Te Anau to the aviaries at the Dunedin Botanic Gardens.

Cr Carmen Houlahan entered the meeting at 10.21 am.

Ms Walker responded to questions.

3 Apologies

Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Steve Walker):

That the Council:

Accepts the apology for lateness from Mayor Jules Radich.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/186)

4 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

Confirms the agenda with the following alteration:

That Item 10 – be taken as the last agenda item and 19 – Funding for Hospital Campaign be taken before Item 17 – Meeting Schedule for 2025.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/187)

5 Declarations of interest

Members were reminded of the need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arose between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Kevin Gilbert):

That the Council:

a) Notes the Elected Members' Interest Register; and

b) Confirms the proposed management plan for Elected Members' Interests; and

c) Notes the proposed management plan for the Executive Leadership Team’s Interests.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/188)

6 Confirmation of Minutes

6.1 Ordinary Council meeting - 24 September 2024

Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Kevin Gilbert):

That the Council:

a) Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 24 September 2024 as a correct record.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/189)

Reports

7 Actions From Resolutions of Council Meetings

A report from Civic provided is to show progress on the implementations of resolutions made at Council meetings.

Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Jim O'Malley):

That the Council:

a) Notes the Open and Completed Actions from resolutions of Council meetings.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/190)

8 Forward Work Programme for Council - October 2024
	A report from Civic provided the updated forward work programme for the 2024-2025 year.
	The Chief Executive Officer (Sandy Graham) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Kevin Gilbert): That the Council: a) Notes the updated Council forward work programme. Motion carried (CNL/2024/191)

9 9 Year Plan Forward Work Programme - October 2024
	A report from Civic provided an update on the forward work programme for the development of the 9 year plan.
	The Chief Executive Officer (Sandy Graham) responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Mandy Mayhem): That the Council: a) Notes the updated Council forward work programme. Motion carried (CNL/2024/192)

Cr Christine Garey left the meeting at 10.33 am and returned at 10.36 am.

11 Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Review
	A report from Waste and Environmental Solutions sought approval to publicly consult on the proposed draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 in accordance with section 44 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.
	The General Manager, Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean); Group Manager Waste and Environmental Solutions (Chris Henderson) and Waste Minimisation Officer (Leigh McKenzie) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
Mayor Jules Radich entered the meeting at 11.08 am and assumed the Chair.
	Moved (Cr Jim O'Malley/Cr Kevin Gilbert): That the Council: a) Approves the proposed draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 for public consultation, following a Special Consultation Procedure. b) Approves: The proposed draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 to be publicly consulted on alongside the 9 Year Plan. c) Authorises the Chief Executive to make any minor editorial changes to the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 and associated consultation documents. d) Decides: i) To publicly consult on the proposed draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025. ii) To appoint members to a hearings panel for the public consultation. iii) If any further amendments should be made before the draft WMMP 2025 is presented for public consultation. e) Notes the Summary of Information, Summary of Engagement, Statement of Proposal, Consultation Method, the submission feedback form, and drop-in schedule which are attached to this report, and will be used as part of the public consultation. The Otago Regional Waste Assessment 2023 will be notified with the Statement of Proposal. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs Bill Acklin, Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Kevin Gilbert, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (14). Against: Cr Lee Vandervis (1). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 14 votes to 1 Motion carried (CNL/2024/193)

12 Updated 2024/25 Zero Carbon Implementation Plan
	A report from the Sustainability Group provided the updated draft 2024/25 Zero Carbon Implementation Plan.
	The General Manager, Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean) and Principal Policy Advisor Sustainability (Jinty MacTavish) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
Cr Carmen Houlahan left the meeting at 11.18 am and returned at 11.22 am. Cr David Benson-Pope left the meeting at 11.50 am and returned at 11.55 am.
	Moved (Cr Mandy Mayhem/Cr Sophie Barker): That the Council: a) Notes the 2024/25 Zero Carbon Implementation Plan. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Kevin Gilbert, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (13). Against: Crs Bill Acklin and Lee Vandervis (2). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 13 votes to 2 Motion carried (CNL/2024/194)

11a ALTERATION of Resolution - Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Review
	It was noted that Resolution d) of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Review needed to be revoked pursuant to SO 23.5 which allows the revocation of a resolution at the same meeting with a 75% majority as Council decided the relevant matters in resolutions a), b) and c).
	Moved (Cr Jim O'Malley/Mayor Jules Radich): That the Council: Revokes the following resolution d) Decides i) to publicly consult on the proposed draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025. ii) to appoint members to a hearings panel for the public consultation. iii) If any further amendments should be made before the draft WMMP 2025 is presented for public consultation. Motion carried (CNL/2024/195) this met the 75% standing order rule.
	The following is a record of the final decision following the revocation.
	Moved (Cr Jim O'Malley/Cr Kevin Gilbert): That the Council: a) Approves the proposed draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 for public consultation, following a Special Consultation Procedure. b) Approves: The proposed draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 to be publicly consulted on alongside the 9 Year Plan. c) Authorises the Chief Executive to make any minor editorial changes to the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 and associated consultation documents. d) Notes the Summary of Information, Summary of Engagement, Statement of Proposal, Consultation Method, the submission feedback form, and drop-in schedule which are attached to this report, and will be used as part of the public consultation. The Otago Regional Waste Assessment 2023 will be notified with the Statement of Proposal. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs Bill Acklin, Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Kevin Gilbert, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (14). Against: Cr Lee Vandervis (1). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 14 votes to 1 Motion carried (CNL/2024/196)

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting until 1.15 pm.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 12.29 pm and reconvened at 1.14 pm.

13 Notice of Intent - Draft Reserves Management Plan General Policies
	A report from Parks and Recreation noted that the Reserves Management General Policies 2005 was 19 years old. The report sought approval to commence the public consultation process required by section 41(6) of the Reserves Act 1977 and of the Statement of Proposal to replace the original plan with the proposed Draft Reserves Management Plan General Policies (the Draft Plan).
	The General Manager Arts, Culture and Recreation (Jeanette Wikaira); Acting Group Manager Parks and Recreation (Heath Ellis), Planning and Partnerships Manager (John Brenkley) and Parks and Recreation Planner (Stephen Hogg) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Kevin Gilbert): That the Council: a) Approves the Statement of Proposal, Draft Reserves Management Plan General Policies and Public Submission Form and the public consultation process required by section 41(6) of the Reserves Act 1977. b) Authorises the commencement of the public consultation process required by Section 41(6) of the Reserves Act 1977 in relation to the Statement of Proposal. c) Notes that the Hearings Committee will consider submissions on the Draft Plan and then make a recommendation to the Strategy, Planning and Engagement Committee under a covering report from staff. Motion carried (CNL/2024/197)

15 Financial Report - Period Ended 31 August 2024
	A report from Finance provided the financial results for the period ended 31 August 2024 and the financial position as at that date.
	The Chief Financial Officer (Carolyn Allan) spoke to the report then responded to questions with Executive Officer (Sandy Graham), General Manager Corporate Services (Robert West) and General Manager Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean) and General Manager Arts, Culture and Recreation (Jeanette Wikaira).
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the Financial Performance for the period ended 31 August 2024 and the Financial Position as at that date. Motion carried (CNL/2024/198)

4 Gift of Land at Portobello from The Otago Peninsula Agricultural and Pastoral Society
	A report from Parks and Recreation advised on the gifting of approximately 1.1735 hectares of land owned by The Otago Peninsula Agricultural and Pastoral Society to the Council.
	The General Manager Arts, Culture and Recreation (Jeanette Wikaira); Acting Group Manager Parks and Recreation (Heath Ellis) and Senior Leasing and Land Advisor (Owen Graham via zoom audio visual link) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Bill Acklin/Cr Marie Laufiso): That the Council: a) Lay the item on the table and to be uplifted the 26 November 2024 Council meeting. Motion carried (CNL/2024/199)

16 2024 Annual Reports for the Dunedin City Holdings Ltd Group
	A report From Finance appended the 2024 Annual Reports of Dunedin City Holdings Ltd (DCHL) Group companies.
	The Chair, DCHL (Tim Loan) and General Manger DCHL (Peter Hocking) spoke to the reports and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Sophie Barker/Cr Lee Vandervis): That the Council: a) Notes the 2024 Annual Reports of: - Dunedin City Holdings Limited - Dunedin City Treasury Limited - Aurora Energy Limited - City Forests Limited - Delta Utility services Limited - Dunedin International Airport Limited - Dunedin Railways Limited - Dunedin Stadium Property Limited - Dunedin Venues Management Limited b) Refers the Group Annual Reports to the 6 November 2024 Finance and Council Controlled Organisations Committee meeting for discussion. Motion carried (CNL/2024/200)
19 Funding for Hospital Campaign
	A report from Communications and Marketing sought formal approval for funding for the Save Our Southern Hospital Campaign. The Chief Financial Officer (Carolyn Allan) and Acting Communications Team Manager (Kathryn van Beek) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
Cr Christine Garey left the meeting at 2.16 pm and returned at 2.20 pm.
	Moved (Cr Steve Walker/Cr Carmen Houlahan): That the Council: a) Approves an authorised overspend of up to $146,099 ($1.10 for every person in Dunedin) to fund the Save Our Southern Hospital campaign. b) Notes that revenue options will be explored to offset costs. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs Bill Acklin, Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Kevin Gilbert, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley, Lee Vandervis, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (15). Against: Nil Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 15 votes to 0 Motion carried (CNL/2024/201)

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Marie Laufiso):

That the Council:

Adjourns for 5 minutes.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 3.10 pm and Cr Bill Acklin left the meeting.

The meeting reconvened at 3.24 pm.

17 Meeting Schedule for 2025
	A report from Civic sought adoption of a meeting schedule for 2025, in accordance with Clause 19(6)(a) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.
	The General Manager Corporate Services (Robert West) and Manager Governance (Clare Sullivan) spoke to the report and responded to questions. It was agreed an additional Council meeting would be added for 24 June 2025 and that the 30 June 2025 Council meeting would be for the adoption of the 9 year plan only.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Andrew Whiley): That the Council: a) Approves the proposed meeting schedule for 2025 as attached to the report with the addition of a Council meeting on the 24 June 2025 b) Notes that additional meeting dates will be presented to a later Council meeting for inclusion. c) Notes that the Community Boards will confirm their meeting dates at their next meetings. Motion carried (CNL/2024/202)

18 Proposed Event Road Closures

A report from Transport sought approval for temporary road closure applications relating to the following events:

a) NZ Silver Fern Rally 2024

b) Orange Parade

c) St Andrews Day Celebration

d) Santa Parade

e) Love Dunedin Christmas Event

f) New Year’s Eve Octagon Celebrations 2024/2025

g) Brighton Gala Day 2025

h) Chinese New Year Celebrations 2025

i) George Street Market Day

Moved (Cr Kevin Gilbert/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

a) Resolves to close the roads detailed below (pursuant to Section 319, Section 342, and Schedule 10 clause 11(e) of the Local Government Act 1974 (LGA 1974)):

i) NZ Silver Fern Rally 2024

Thursday, 28 November 2024	2.40pm to 7.40pm	Stage 48: Dicksons Road · Dicksons Road, Otokia – from Taieri Mouth Road to Otokia-Kuri Bush Road East · Otokia-Kuri Bush Road East – from Dicksons Road to Christies Gully Road · Christies Gully Road – from Otokia-Kuri Bush Road East to Henley Road · Henley Road – from Christies Gully Road to Otokia-Kuri Bush Road West · Otokia-Kuri Bush Road West – from Henley Road to Big Stone Road · Big Stone Road – from Otokia-Kuri Bush Road West to McLaren Gully Road · McLaren Gully Road – from Big Stone Road to Allanton-Waihola Road (SH1)
Thursday, 28 November 2024	3.35pm to 8.35pm	Stage 49: Silverstream Valley Road/ Flagstaff-Whare Flat Road · Silverstream Valley Road – from #200 Silverstream Valley Road to Flagstaff Whare Flat Road · Flagstaff-Whare Flat Road – from Silverstream Valley Road to #70 Flagstaff Whare Flat RoadDicksons Road, Otokia – from Taieri Mouth Road to Otokia-Kuri Bush Road East
Friday, 29 November 2024	7.45am to 12.45pm	Stage 50: Ramrock Road · Ramrock Road, Waikouaiti - from the Dunedin City Council Boundary to Mount Watkin Road, Waikouaiti
	9.00am to 2.00pm	Stage 51: Hartfield Road · Hartfield Road, Hyde - from Moonlight Road, Middlemarch to Hyde-Macraes Road, Hyde
	10.00am to 3.00pm	Stage 52: Paerau / Old Dunstan Road · Old Dunstan Road, Deep Stream - from the Dunedin City Council Boundary to Rocklands Road, Deep Stream · Rocklands Road, Deep Stream - from Old Dunstan Road to Sutton-Clarks Junction Road, Sutton (SH87)

ii) Orange Parade

Friday, 29 November 2024

9.15am to 10.15am

· Great King Street, between Frederick Street and Albany Street.

· Frederick Street, between Great King Street and George Street

· George Street, between Frederick Street and The Octagon

9.15am to 10.45am

· The Octagon Central Carriageway

10.00am to 2.15pm

· Left-hand downhill lane of Upper Stuart Street, between Littlebourne Road and Queens Drive

iii) St Andrews Day Celebration

Saturday, 30 November 2024

8.00am to 4.00pm

· The Octagon Central Carriageway, from Princes Street to George Street

iv) Santa Parade

Sunday, 1 December 2025

8.00am to 5.00pm

· George Street, between Regent Street and Duke Street

· Warrender Street, between Queen Street and George Street

· Titan Street (entire)

2.00pm to 5.00pm

· George Street, between the Octagon and Duke Street

· Park Street, between Queen Street and George Street

· The Octagon Central Carriageway

· Harrop Street

· Bath Street

· Princes Street, between the Octagon and Moray Place

· Moray Place, between Princes Street and Lower Stuart Street

· Burlington Street

· Upper Stuart Street, between the Octagon and Moray Place

· Lower Stuart Street, between the Octagon and Moray Place

From 3.00pm (Parade start time)

· Every side street along George Street

v) Love Dunedin Christmas Event

Saturday, 7 December 2024

3.00pm to 8.00pm

· The Lower Octagon and Lower Stuart Street

vi) New Year’s Eve Octagon Celebrations 2024/2025

Tuesday, 31 December 2024

9.00am to 7.00am on Wednesday, 1 January 2025

· The Lower Octagon

· Lower Stuart Street

Access to Bath Street will remain available

Tuesday, 31 December 2024

2.00pm to 2.00am on Wednesday, 1 January 2025

· The entire Octagon

· Upper and lower Stuart Street

· Princes Street, from the Octagon to Moray Place

· George Street, from the Octagon to Moray Place

· Harrop Street

· Bath Street

vii) Brighton Gala Day 2025

Sunday, 19 January 2025

7.00am to 6.30pm

· Brighton Road, between Bath Street and Taylor Street

Detours via Bath Street, Cole Street and Taylor Street

viii) Chinese New Year Celebrations 2025

Friday, 31 January 2025	5.00pm to 11.30pm on Saturday, 1 February 2025	· Carpark at end of Queens Gardens cul-de-sac
Saturday, 1 February 2025	5.00pm to 11.30pm	· Queens Gardens cul-de-sac, from Cumberland Street to the carpark
	6.00pm to 7.15pm	· Princes Street, from The Octagon to Moray Place
	7.15pm to 7.30pm	· Princes Street and Rattray Street, from Moray Place to Cumberland Street for the Dragon Parade
	9.30pm to 10.30pm	· Thomas Burns Street, from Fryatt Street to Mason Street · Wharf Street northbound, from the Cumberland Street overbridge to Fryatt Street
Sunday, 2 February 2025	10.00am to 1.00pm	· George Street, from Hanover Street to St Andrew Street

ix) George Street Market Day

Saturday, 8 February 2025

5.00am to 6.00pm

· George Street, between Moray Place to Frederick Street

· St Andrew Street, between Filleul Street and Great King Street

· Hanover Street, between Filleul Street and Great King Street

4.00am to 7.00pm

Vehicle Tow Notice

· The streets listed above will be subject to a full road closure for the event.

· All vehicles parked in the closed area from 4.00am will be towed.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/203)

Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Steve Walker:

That the Council:

Extends the meeting beyond 6 hours.

Motion carried

Resolution to Exclude the Public

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Steve Walker):

That the Council:

Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, exclude the public from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting namely:

General subject of the matter to be considered

Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

Reason for Confidentiality

C1 Ordinary Council meeting - 24 September 2024 - Public Excluded

S7(2)(a)

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

S7(2)(g)

The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

S7(2)(h)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

S7(2)(i)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

S7(2)(j)

The withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.

S6(a)

The making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences and the right to a fair trial.

C2 Confidential Council Actions from Resolutions at Council Meetings

S7(2)(a)

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

S7(2)(g)

The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

S7(2)(h)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

S7(2)(i)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

S48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

C3 Confidential Council Forward Work Programme - October 2024

S7(2)(h)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

S48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

C4 Confidential 9 Year Plan Forward Work Programme - October 2024

S7(2)(h)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

S48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

C5 Ōtepoti LIve Music Action Plan - Music Advisory Panel

S7(2)(a)

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

S48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

C6 Waste Futures Commercial Matters

S7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

S7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

S7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

S48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

C7 Director Appointments and Remuneration – Dunedin City Holdings Limited Group of Companies

S7(2)(a)

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

S48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act, or Section 6 or Section 7 or Section 9 of the Official Information Act 1982, as the case may require, which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as shown above after each item.

That Messrs Tim Loan and Peter Hocking be permitted to remain in the meeting because of their knowledge of Item C7 – Director Appointments and Remuneration – Dunedin City Holdings Limited Group Companies, which would be of assistance in relation to the matters discussed.

That the meeting be adjourned.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/204)

The meeting moved into confidential at 3.37 pm and reconvened in public at 9:32am on Thursday 31 October 2024 at the Toitū Auditorium.

In attendance: Mayor Jules Radich, Deputy Mayor Cherry Lucas, Cr David Benson-Pope, Cr Lee Vandervis, Cr Bill Acklin, Cr Andrew Whiley, Cr Marie Laufiso, Cr Christine Garey, Cr Sophie Barker, Cr Kevin Gilbert and Cr Carmen Houlahan.

Apologies were received from Cr Steve Walker, Cr Jim O’Malley and Cr Brent Weatherall for absence and from Cr Mandy Mayhem for lateness.

10 Dunedin City Council Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2024
	A report from Finance sought approval and adoption of the Annual Report for the Dunedin City Council for the financial year ended 30 June 2024.
	The Chairperson of the Audit and Risk Subcommittee (Warren Allen) and Auditor (Rudie Tomlinson) from Audit were attendance via audio visual link and spoke to the report and responded to questions. The Chief Executive Officer (Sandy Graham) and Chief Financial Officer (Carolyn Allan) responded to questions.
Mr Warren Allen and Mr Rudie Tomlinson left the meeting at 9:52 am
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Approves the Dunedin City Council Annual Report for the financial year ended 30 June 2024. b) Delegates the Chief Executive the authority to make any minor editing required to the approved Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2024. c) Authorises the Mayor and Chief Executive to sign the Statement of Compliance and Responsibility on behalf of Council. d) Authorises the Mayor and Chief Executive to sign the Letter of Representation to the auditor on behalf of Council. e) Receives the Audit Report on the Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2024; and f) Adopts the audited Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2024. During discussion Mayor Jules Radich left the meeting at 10.09 am and Deputy Mayor Lucas assumed the Chair. Motion carried (CNL/2024/205) with Cr Vandervis recording his vote against.

The meeting concluded at 10:11 am

..............................................

MAYOR

Council

25 November 2024

Reports

Otepoti Dunedin Housing Plan Update Report

Department: Māori, Partnerships and Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides an update on the progress against the Ōtepoti Dunedin Housing Plan 2022 (the Plan), adopted by Council on 30 August 2022.

2 It outlines the work completed since the last update on 24 April 2024.

3 This report also concludes the Implementation Plan 2023-2024, which defined the priority actions for the Plans first 18 months.

4 This report includes the Implementation Plan 2024-2026 for noting.

5 Staff have progressed the 12 actions outlined in the Implementation Plan 2023-2024 (Attachment A). This report provides an updates on work completed since the last update on 24 April 2024, highlights actions that have transitioned into business as usual, and outlines those carried forward to the next Implementation Plan 2024 – 2026.

6 The fifteen actions of the new Implementation Plan 2024 – 2026 are presented (Attachment B).

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the updates against the Ōtepoti Dunedin Housing Plan 2022 and its Implementation Plan 2023 - 2024

b) Notes the 2024-2026 Implementation Plan based on the vision and goals of the Ōtepoti Dunedin Housing Plan 2022

BACKGROUND

7 The Implementation Plan 2023-2024 has 12 actions against five priority work areas in the Plan. The actions were developed and prioritised in consultation with stakeholders.

8 The priority work areas for 2023-2024 are:

· bring people together to strengthen and create connections

· investigate ways to increase the quality of our housing

· find better ways to use land for housing

· make it easier to work with Council

· look after our most vulnerable.

9 The Implementation Plan 2024 – 2026 continues work with slightly amended priority areas and identifies 15 actions which are a combination of advancing the work that has been started and new areas of focus. The actions have been identified in consultation with groups and individuals in the Advisor’s database.

DISCUSSION

10 Progress against the 12 actions for the 2023-2024 Implementation Plan is detailed below.

11 Actions that are being progressed in, or extended to the new implementation plan are identified.

12 Actions that have been completed or transitioned to business as usual are identified.

Priority Work Area: Bring people together to strengthen and create connections

Action 1 – Facilitate cross-agency stakeholder hui on housing topics – progressed to business as usual

13 The national council staff group to collaborate on homelessness is now set up and includes a number of councils across the motu. This group has set up a regular meeting schedule and identified areas of collaboration. Councils include Christchurch, Nelson, Wellington, Whanganui, Rotorua, Tauranga, Hamilton, Auckland. Further involvement and inclusion is being canvassed across the motu. This group are planning to meet in person alongside a national hui on homelessness in 2025.

14 Multi-agency groups have been set up across the city to progress various workstreams and include a Community Housing Providers group and Homelessness group.

15 The Housing Policy Advisor (Advisor) continues to be a connector within the city and beyond, both to the community and into council.

Action 2 – Create a nation-wide Council group for sharing information and approaches – progressed to business as usual

16 The Advisor is in regular contact with a variety of other local councils about housing related topics, such as making homes more accessible, energy efficient housing, and approaches to homelessness.

Action 3 – Develop a regular stakeholder newsletter to keep everyone updated – progressed to business as usual

17 The first Ōtepoti Dunedin Housing newsletter called ‘Housing Matters” was sent to stakeholders in April 2024. Feedback from recipients was positive and while initially it was planned to be quarterly feedback has been that six monthly or as required is sufficient. The next newsletter is due before the end of the year.

Action 4 – Build a contact database to enable better sharing of information across stakeholders and partners – progressed to business as usual

18 Consultation, meetings and talks are ongoing and the contact database continues to grow progressing to business as usual.

Priority Work Area: Investigate ways to increase the quality of our housing

Action 5 – Build a series of resources that are easy to understand and accessible – progressed as Action 15 of 2024 – 2026 Implementation Plan

19 There has been progress and the resources around ‘what you can do with your land’ are in the final checking phase. The address checking function is completed and ready to be uploaded once the design of the page has been completed.

Action 6 - Develop an options analysis of incentives – progressed as Action 4 of 2024 – 2026 Implementation Plan

· Identifying options for an incentive scheme that encourages building and retrofitting homes with design for everyone (Universal Design/designing for disabilities)

· Making homes warmer and reducing construction waste

20 The Building Owners Incentives (sustainability, earthquake strengthening, heritage conservation) report was noted by Council at its meeting on 30 January 2024. This report highlighted a preference for a council-wide approach to ensure incentive options are developed in a coordinated manner for consideration by council.

21 The overall coordination of incentives offered traverses a number of groups across council which include but is not limited to grants, remissions of rates and building services costs.

22 Reports will come to Council identifying options; prioritising those that have alignment with the various strategies and plans and those that make the largest impact.

Priority Work Area: Find better ways to use land for housing

Action 7 – Looking at all possible land/buildings - completed

Staff have reviewed all DCC land holdings that are zoned residential and are identifying potential opportunities. A report for consideration will come to council in the first half of 2025.

Action 8 – Collaborate across groups to identify opportunities (may include developers, landowners, building owners) – progressed as Actions 3, 6, 7 and 8 of 2024 – 2026 Implementation Plan

23 The Advisor continues to act as a conduit to groups including internal staff, individuals, landholders, not-for-profit organisations, land trusts, and developers.

Action 9 – Identify where Council can advocate for additional funding from Central Government – continuing in Actions 8 and 9 of 2024 – 2026 Implementation Plan

24 A regular meeting of Community Housing Providers continues to be hosted by the Ōtepoti Housing Alliance and the Advisor attends on behalf of the council. This meeting is a forum for sharing of plans, resources, goals and approaches towards increasing housing supply and looking for funding options.

25 It was noted in the last report that there have been strong indications from Central Government that Community Housing Providers are going to play a stronger role in the building of homes. There has been no update on the funding model proposed at the time of writing.

Priority Work Area: Make it easy to work with Council

Action 10 – Create an online resource for housing that is easy to find and search – progressed to Action 15 of 2024 – 2026 Implementation Plan

Action 11 – Create easy to read resources on the District Plan, designing for everyone and saving energy – progressed to Action 15 of 2024 – 2026 Implementation Plan (noting some have been completed)

26 Staff are working to ensure accuracy of information provided. The interactive map and the General Residential 1 (GR1) information is complete. The General Residential 2 (GR2) is yet to be finalised.

27 All the resources for the Eco Design service have been updated. These resources have been utilised in visits to various libraries across Dunedin including Middlemarch, Waitati and South Dunedin and within house visits to the public.

Priority Work Area: Look after our most vulnerable

Action 12 – Create a joined-up approach to address homelessness in our city - progressed to Action 9/10 and 11 of 2024 – 2026 Implementation Plan

28 Ōtepoti Dunedin has recently experienced high-profile homelessness with the appearance of an encampment at the Oval in the central city. The high-profile nature of this encampment has brought both media and public attention.

29 While the visible encampment at the Oval has now dispersed it is anecdotally reported by NGOs, charities and agencies that the number of homeless within our city has not reduced.

30 This is a complex area of work, and there are many factors that impact on a lack of housing resilience or becoming homeless. It involves groups and people from across society including those that are not usually considered at risk of homelessness, such as women and young people.

31 The first iterations of the training for the database/assessment tool has been completed. There were thirty-one participants across two training days. All costs for those participants from NGOs and charities was covered by a private donation via The Gift Trust and agencies such as Te Whatu Ora were self-funded. There were some participants that attended for educational purposes to encourage the use of trauma informed conversation techniques within their work e.g. Security staff.

32 The real time database is now live and has twenty-three frontline workers from ten organisations who are licenced to enter individual assessments. While the number of ‘stars’ entered at this time are small, as the numbers grow the information about the needs of our homeless community will become apparent.

Introduction to the Implementation Plan 2024 - 2026

33 The new Implementation Plan has 15 actions across six action areas as noted below. Some as already identified, are extensions or continuations of the work already completed.

34 The next report will give updates and progress against these fifteen actions.

Complete the vulnerable people and Dunedin City Council land use policies

35 Action 1 – complete policy work around managing homeless groups and their belongings and DCC residential land use options.

Create Collaboration Opportunities

36 Action 2 – lead engagement across NGOs, Central Government, community housing providers and developers to overcome barriers to building affordable homes.

37 Action 3 - Look for funding and collaboration opportunities for increasing housing stock in the city.

Progress ways to improve the quality of our housing

38 Action 4 - Co-ordinate the building incentives investigations across council.

Create mechanisms to utilise Dunedin City Council owned land to increase housing supply

39 Action 5 – Design and implement mechanisms to enable development of housing on Dunedin City Council land.

40 Action 6 – Explore partnerships options with and between external groups to build affordable, accessible or social housing.

41 Action 7 – Create a communications plan to socialise land use options.

42 Action 8 – Continue to advocate for investment in housing in Dunedin City Council.

Continue to work towards our Functional Zero approach to homelessness

43 Action 9 – Review data collected, analyse and support advocation or advocate for services.

44 Action 10 – Expand provider/agency involvement.

45 Action 11 – Run further Dunedin training.

46 Action 12 – Create council-wide guidelines for interactions with our homeless citizens and their belongings.

47 Action 13 – Complete emergency planning response to extreme weather events, natural disasters and social emergencies for our homeless and vulnerable communities.

48 Action 14 – Facilitate a Homeless Hui.

Continue the update of the website and easy to read resources

49 Action 15 – Finalise updated web-page and increase links

OPTIONS

50 There are no options as this report is for noting.

NEXT STEPS

51 The Advisor will continue work started or begin new options identified as outlined in the Implementation Plan 2024 – 2026.

Signatories

Author:	Gill Brown - Principal Policy Advisor Housing
Authoriser:	Nicola Morand - Manahautū (General Manager Policy and Partnerships)

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft Implementation plan 2023-2024 update on progress	44
⇩b	DCC Housing Plan	46

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

This decision promotes the social well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the economic well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Future Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

The Ōtepoti Dunedin Housing Plan 2022 and the Implementation Plan 2024 – 2026 contributes to an effective housing eco-system for the city and contributes to the DCC’s strategic framework.

Māori Impact Statement

Housing cuts across many aspects of Māori wellbeing, such as whānau health, acquisition and use of te reo Māori, care of whenua and the environment, the ability to provide sustenance and hospitality for themselves and others, and many aspects of wellbeing that are unique to Māori culture. There are a number of large multidisciplinary and multi-agency research projects working alongside Māori communities to empower Māori in the housing sector and developing the knowledge needed to address severe housing deprivation, homelessness, social housing, affordable rental options, ownership and papakainga development. The Policy and Partnerships team is in touch with a number of these large research projects, to develop relationships and exchange information to inform the development of the Council’s Strategic priorities and commitment to Te Taki Haruru.

Sustainability

Sustainability has been identified as a key issue through ongoing consultation with the community and stakeholders. There is alignment of goals between the Ōtepoti Dunedin Housing Plan and the Zero Carbon Plan.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This work is in line with the Long Term Plan 2025-2034.

Financial considerations

Funding for the Principal Policy Advisor – Housing, Eco-Designer and a small operational budget is included in the current Annual Plan budget 2024 – 2025.

Significance

This report is considered of low significance in terms of the Councils Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

External engagement with stakeholders across the city continues.

Engagement - internal

There had been internal engagement across many DCC departments.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no direct implications for Community Board areas.

Council

25 November 2024

231 Stuart Street Public Consultation

Department: Property

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Council owns the property at 231 Stuart Street (“the Property), previously known as the Fortune Theatre. The Property sits within the Community portfolio.

2 The Property was occupied and run by the Fortune Theatre Trust (“the Trust”) for professional theatre between 1978 to 2018 and has been owned by Dunedin City Council (DCC) since 2000. In mid-2018, the Trust announced the immediate closure of the theatre, and the Property has been vacant since.

3 This report is presented in two parts as there are two decisions that need to be made:

a) Part A – Decision 1: Does Council agree to seek feedback on the removal of the Property from Schedule 2 of the Significance and Engagement Policy / Kaupapa here hirahira whatatutaka (“the Policy”) as part of the 9 Year Plan consultation process?

b) Part B – Decision 2: Does Council agree to also seek feedback on a proposal to sell the Property as part of the 9 Year Plan consultation process?

4 The purpose of this report is to present information to Council so that it can make the above two decisions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Agrees that Council will seek feedback on the removal of the Property at 231 Stuart Street from Schedule 2 of the Significance and Engagement Policy as part of the 9 Year Plan 2025-34 consultation process: and

b) Agrees that Council will seek feedback on a proposal to sell the Property at 231 Stuart Street as part of the 9 Year Plan 2025-34 consultation process.

BACKGROUND

details about the property

Land Status

5 The Property is 468 square metres in area, held in fee simple in Record of Title OT287/25 and contains no encumbrances.

Heritage NZ Category Status

6 The Property is protected under its Heritage Category 1 status by the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. A category 1 rating is an historic place that is of special or outstanding historical or cultural heritage significance or value.

7 The protection is for the entire external building envelope and any future work must be done in consultation with Heritage New Zealand to ensure it satisfies the Category 1 listing.

District Plan

8 Under the Dunedin City Second Generation District Plan (2GP), the land is zoned Central Business District (CBD) and is within the Moray Place – Dowling Street commercial Heritage Precinct.

9 It is listed in Schedule A1.1 Schedule of Protected Heritage Items and Sites, as a Heritage Building (B574) where protection is required for the entire external building envelope. This stipulates the need to accurately return the fabric of a building to a known earlier form by reassembling and reinstating components using new or original materials.

10 The 2GP CBD zone provides for a wide range of activities at the Property, including commercial, recreational, residential, community support, large scale retail, licensed premises and commercial residential activity. It allows for repairs and maintenance and restoration of a scheduled heritage building but any other additions or alterations are a restricted discretionary activity. Demolition is a non-complying activity.

Property History

11 The Property was constructed for the former Trinity Methodist Church. It was opened in 1870.

12 The Property was owned and operated by the Fortune Theatre Trust for professional theatre between 1978 and 2000. In 2000, the Trust approached the Council to assist with the Property because it was finding it financially difficult to own it. As a result, it was purchased by the Council in 2000 for $220,000 plus GST (if any) with the Trust leasing the Property from the Council.

13 In May 2018, the Trust announced the immediate closure of the Theatre. The operation as a theatre was financially unsustainable. The Trust was wound-up, and the lease of the Property by the Trust was surrendered to Council on 20 July 2018. The Property has been vacant since.

14 The Property generates no revenue and has an annual operating budget of $122,000 for rates, electricity, insurance, depreciation, and maintenance (dehumidifiers and ventilation to prevent mould growth).

Condition of the Building

15 The Property has been in a “holding” state since it was vacated. Urgent repairs have been made where necessary and emergency systems are functioning, however it is not suitable for occupation in its current state.

16 A structural assessment was undertaken in 2011. This determined that the building was 67% of the New Build Standard. Since then, the Building (Earthquake Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 came into effect and is now embedded in the Building Act 2004 (the Act). The change to the legislation means that an updated seismic assessment is required.

Exterior and Condition

17 The building generally consists of concrete foundations, stone exterior, plastered capping/surrounds/parapets, metal/timber joinery, slate, and copper roofing with iron flashings.

18 The building has suffered from historic water/moisture ingress through the external walls, particularly to the subfloor level. The roof has leaked in places which have now been fixed and moisture levels are maintained at a consistent level by using dehumidifiers.

Internal Division and Condition

19 The building is on three levels, basement, ground floor and a mezzanine area.

20 The décor is in poor condition and there are numerous signs of historic water damage to internal wall linings, dampness and mould.

21 Anything that retains moisture, some wall linings and flooring and rotten wood in the stairways, have been removed.

22 The dampness is currently being managed by dehumidifiers together with sensors that remotely record the humidity within the building.

23 The building’s heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems are in poor condition, the system is not operating and requires replacement.

24 There have been many alterations and changes to the electrical systems over the years. It is likely to need significant upgrades or replacement if the building was to be occupied.

Building Compliance

25 The building has a current Building Warrant of Fitness (BWOF). Emergency Warning Systems are compliant as is the emergency lighting, future upgrades will be required.

26 There are a number of repairs and upgrades needed for ventilation, signage, final exits, smoke separations, toilets and accessibility.

Estimate of Costs

27 A high-level estimate of costs just to bring the top floor (main stage area) of the building up to a useable standard is somewhere between $100,000 - $150,000. However, a full condition report and scope of works would allow for a more accurate estimate and the costings are likely to be much higher to enable full use of the property. This estimate does not cover the entire building.

DISCUSSION

Proposed Removal of the Property from the Significance and Engagement Policy

28 The Policy establishes a general approach for determining the significance of Council decisions and sets out when and how the Council will engage the community in its decision-making relative to the significance of the decision.

29 The Policy sets out the criteria for significance as follows:

a) The importance to Dunedin

b) Community interest

c) Consistency with existing policy and strategy

d) Impact on Council’s finances, capacity, and capability

30 The Property is listed in Schedule 2 of the Policy as a Strategic Council Owned Asset.

31 While the Property was considered significant when operating as the Fortune Theatre, now that it is no longer used for this purpose the importance to Dunedin has declined and there is currently no identified future purpose for holding it.

32 The building has deteriorated and improving it to a useable state would require a high level of financial input. Following the closure of the Fortune Theatre, the DCC and Creative NZ jointly commissioned a study into the future provision for Performing Arts in the city. Phase two of this work considered viable options for a flexible, mid-sized venue.

33 The Property was considered as part of this work, but later discounted largely because of its small size and inability to accommodate the desired amount of seating.

34 This report recommends that Council consult through the 9 Year Plan process on the removal of the Property from Schedule 2 in the Policy. If the Property was removed from Schedule 2 then Council would not necessarily need to use the special consultative procedure when considering matters relating to the Property. Staff are however recommending that if Council is wanting to sell the Property, then this be consulted on through the 9 Year Plan process (which is a special consultative procedure).

Proposal to consult on a sale

35 Staff consider that the Property is surplus to Council requirements for the following reasons:

· The Property is no longer fit for the purpose as a theatre.

· The Property no longer contributes to the strategic goals of the Council or any growth strategy, structure plan, asset management plan or similar.

· The Property is no longer required for its intended purpose.

· The Property is not required for any alternative purpose identified to date.

· There are ongoing costs of maintaining the Property.

· Disposing of the Property will be of financial benefit to the Council.

36 There are no restrictions on an open market sale of the Property, and it is protected via its Heritage Category 1 rating whether it is owned by Council or not. Under the 2GP it is listed in Schedule A1.1 Schedule of Protected Heritage Items and Sites, as a Heritage Building (B574) where protection is required for the entire external building envelope. The operative District Plan provides for a wide range of uses.

37 The Property has significant exterior, interior and compliance issues that would require a major financial input should the Property be retained by the Council. If Council retains the Property there will be ongoing repair and maintenance costs given the age, exterior make-up of the building and dampness issues.

38 Because of the Property’s historic character there may be a purchaser that is able to capture the historic nature of the building for their own commercial or private use.

39 The financial benefits of disposing of the Property outweigh the financial costs of holding on to the Property, including consideration of:

a) The cost of the disposal

b) Any alternative use for the Property.

c) Income generated by the Property.

d) The ongoing maintenance costs to the community and the ratepayers of Dunedin.

40 A disposal could allow the private sector to transform the property into an asset that Dunedin can be proud of. The Property is well located, with a strong presence on the corner of Moray Place and Stuart Street. The Heritage design elements of the building provide an instant iconic branding opportunity for businesses looking to create a truly unique experience in terms of food, entertainment, retail, accommodation, or commercial office.

41 A building not used naturally deteriorates. The private sector is potentially in the best position to reposition the Property for the highest and best use in the Dunedin market.

conclusions

42 Staff recommend seeking feedback through the 9 Year Plan process on the removal of the Property from Schedule 2 of the Policy and the disposal of the Property.

OPTIONS

Part A – Decision 1:

43 Does Council agree to seek feedback on the removal of the Property from Schedule 2 of the Policy as part of the 9 Year Plan consultation process?

Option One – Recommended Option

44 Seek feedback through the 9 Year Plan consultation process on the removal of the Property from Schedule 2 in the Policy.

Advantages

· The Property is no longer being used as a theatre and does not carry the significance it once had in terms of the Policy.

· The Property no longer fits the criteria set out in the Policy.

· The Property no longer contributes to the strategic goals of Council and is not required for any alternative purpose.

· Removal from the Policy means a Special Consultative Procedure is not required for engagement.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages.

Option Two – Status Quo

45 Do not remove the Property from the Policy

Advantages

· The Special Consultative Procedure is required for engagement.

Disadvantages

· The Property remains in the Policy even though is does not carry the significance it once had in terms of the Policy.

· The Property remains in the Policy even though it no longer fits the criteria set out in the Policy.

· The Property remains in the Policy even though it no longer contributes to the strategic goals of Council and is not required for any alternative purpose.

· A Special Consultative Procedure is still required even though the Property no longer fits the requirements of the Policy.

Part B – Decision 2:

46 Does Council agree to seek feedback on the disposal of the Property as part of the 9 Year Plan consultation document?

Option One – Recommended Option

47 Council agrees to seek feedback on the disposal of the Property as part of the 9 Year Plan consultation document.

Advantages

· The proposal to dispose of the Property as part of the Council 9 Year Plan is an effective form of consultation given the wide range of publicity the property has had.

· Consultation provides an opportunity for the public to provide feedback on the proposal.

Disadvantages

· There are no disadvantages to consulting on the disposal of the Property.

Option Two – Status Quo

48 Council does not seek feedback on the disposal of the Property as part of the 9 Year Plan consultation document.

Advantages

· Council retains the Property and can decide on the future purpose of the Property.

Disadvantages

· There is no opportunity available for the public to provide feedback on the proposal to dispose.

· A decision on how to manage the Property will need to be considered as it no longer contributes to the strategic goals of Council and is not required for any alternative purpose.

· While the building remains empty, there will be ongoing costs.

NEXT STEPS

49 If Council agrees to seek feedback on the removal of the Property from Schedule 2 of the Policy and/or to seek feedback on the proposal to sell the Property then the consultation document for the 9 Year Plan will be prepared accordingly.

50 Feedback received on the removal of the Property from Schedule 2 of the Policy and the proposal to sell the Property will be the subject of a further report to Council.

Signatories

Author:

Maria Sleeman - Property Officer - Community and Civic

David Arlidge - Property Manager

Authoriser:

Anna Nilsen - Group Manager, Property Services

Robert West - General Manager Corporate Services

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	✔
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Future Development Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	✔

The Property no longer supports any Council strategy.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

A sale of the Property would will allow for sustainable investment in other assets for the future and limit any further unknown consequences and expenses for Council by holding on to the Property.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The proposal will be consulted on as part of the 9 Year Plan 2025-34.

Financial considerations

If the Council was to sell the Property then this is likely to be an unbudgeted net benefit to Council.

Significance

The recommendations are to consult through the 9 Year Plan 2025-34.

Engagement – external

Over the last six years there have been two parties interested in the Property.

Engagement - internal

Engagement has been undertaken with the Property and Legal Teams.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks arising from the recommendations as the recommendations are to consult the public through the 9 Year Plan consultation process.

Conflict of Interest

There are no identified conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The Property does not fall within a Community Board area. There are no identified implications for Community Boards

Council

25 November 2024

Heritage Action Plan: Advisory Panel draft Terms of Reference

Department: City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The Ōtepoti Dunedin Heritage Action Plan (HAP) was adopted by Council on 12 December 2023, replacing the 2007 Heritage Strategy. The draft Implementation Plan, containing 35 individual actions, was noted.

2 The implementation of the HAP will be monitored by an Advisory Panel. This report requests the Council approve the draft terms of reference for the Advisory Panel.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the terms of reference for the Ōtepoti Dunedin Heritage Action Plan Advisory Panel.

BACKGROUND

3 A Council resolution on 22 February 2023 requested that staff develop a heritage action plan to replace the 2007 Heritage Strategy. The Ōtepoti Dunedin Heritage Action Plan (HAP) was developed with input from the Heritage Action Plan Advisory Group (HAPAG) and engagement with mana whenua through the consultancy Aukaha. A community and heritage building owner survey also informed the plan’s development.

4 The HAP and an initial Implementation Plan were presented to Council on 12 December 2023. The initial Implementation Plan contained 35 individual actions and a draft implementation programme out to 2026/2027. It also indicated whether new staff resource would be required to undertake the actions. The actions were a mix of actions to ‘investigate’ and actions to deliver.

5 Council resolved to adopt the HAP, subject to agreed amendments, and noted the draft Implementation Plan through the following resolution:

Moved (Cr Sophie Barker/Cr Kevin Gilbert):

That the Council:

a) Agrees the vision for the Ōtepoti Dunedin Heritage Action Plan was: “Ōtepoti Dunedin is a city that treasures its heritage as a living inheritance from its past and a legacy for future generations.”

b) Adopts the Ōtepoti Dunedin Heritage Action Plan with the following amendments:

· Inclusion of the vision;

· Change Paragraph 4 on page 2 to “The mission for the Heritage Action Plan.”

· Change Paragraph 8 to “The 2023 Heritage Action Plan envisages a city where historic buildings are conserved and restored, maintained and strengthened, re-used rather than replaced, valued by the community, and promoted as a defining characteristic of Ōtepoti Dunedin’s built environment”

· Adds to Introduction paragraph 2 on page 4 “Ōtepoti Dunedin is considered Aotearoa New Zealand’s premier heritage destination”.

c) Notes the draft Ōtepoti Dunedin Heritage Action Plan Implementation Plan.

d) Requests staff to continue to engage with key stakeholders and investigate the following additions to the implementation plan:

· The establishment of a Heritage Building Owners Forum to provide feedback and lobby on any built heritage issues.

· Work to ensure that heritage tourism (including product and market development) is highlighted.

· Consider options for a zero-carbon adaptive reuse policy.

· Recognise and support the existing skills resource.

e) Notes that staff will bring an updated draft Implementation Plan to Council in time for 10 year plan 2024-34 deliberations in May 2024.

f) Notes that confirmation of a governance approach for oversight of the implementation of the Heritage Action Plan, will follow approval by Council of a governance framework.

Motion carried (CNL/2023/305)

DISCUSSION

6 Since the adoption of the HAP in December 2023, work on delivering projects in the HAP has continued. Some actions are part of the City Development work programme and work on those actions has been completed or is in progress. This includes heritage assessments for 146 places as part of Plan Change 1 to the partly operative Dunedin City Second Generation District Plan (2GP), which will be notified on 20 November 2024. Work is also progressing on Plan Change 2 to the 2GP, which was initiated by Council on 24 September 2024 and will include changes to some of the heritage provisions and provisions which manage the design of multi-unit development in the 2GP. This plan change is likely to be notified toward the end of 2025.

7 The HAPAG met in July 2024 and identified actions from the draft Implementation Plan that they considered would deliver the most benefit to the city.

8 However, following the decision to delay the 10-year plan, the HAP Implementation Plan work was put on hold to enable its integration with the 9-year plan process. The HAP Implementation Plan and work programme for the first three years will be finalised after Council identifies the preferred investment option through the 9-year plan deliberations.

9 While this work continues, it is proposed to establish a new HAP Advisory Panel, with the primary purpose of monitoring the implementation of the HAP (the earlier HAPAG was established to support the development of the HAP). The membership of the re-established Advisory Panel combines expertise and knowledge from the industry, advocacy groups, the Dunedin Heritage Fund and the Council. The panel also includes a representative from Mana Whenua. The terms of reference for the re-established Advisory Panel are included as Attachment A.

10 It is proposed that the HAP Advisory Panel would meet twice a year, however, the frequency of meetings will be confirmed after the programme of work included in the Implementation Plan for the short term is known. The draft Terms of Reference note that the Chairperson may choose to reduce the frequency of meetings to once a year for periods as required.

OPTIONS

Option One – Approve the Terms of Reference for the Ōtepoti Dunedin Heritage Action Plan Advisory Panel

11 Under this option, Council approves the terms of reference for the Ōtepoti Dunedin Heritage Action Plan Advisory Panel (Attachment A).

Advantages

· Responds to the Council’s 12 December 2023 resolution to confirm a governance approach for oversight of the implementation of the Heritage Action Plan following approval of a Council-wide governance framework.

· Combines expertise and knowledge from the industry, advocacy groups, the Dunedin Heritage Fund, the Council and Mana Whenua to assist with monitoring the implementation of the HAP.

· The Advisory Panel will contribute to the three yearly review of the HAP.

Disadvantages

· The HAP programme of work for the short term has not yet been finalised. The HAP Implementation Plan and work programme for the first three years will be finalised after Council identifies the preferred investment option through the 9-year plan deliberations.

Option Two – Do not approve the Terms of Reference for the Ōtepoti Dunedin Heritage Action Plan Advisory Panel

12 Under this option, the terms of reference for the Ōtepoti Dunedin Heritage Action Plan Advisory Panel are not approved.

Advantages

· Allows consideration of the timing of and terms of reference for the Advisory Panel until after decisions are made on the investment option to implement the HAP.

Disadvantages

· Delays implementation of Council’s resolution regarding the Advisory Panel and the advantages of this approach.

NEXT STEPS

13 If the draft Terms of Reference are approved, staff will prepare a report to Council seeking appointment of members to the Ōtepoti Dunedin Heritage Action Plan Advisory Panel.

Signatories

Author:

Mark Mawdsley - Team Leader Advisory Services

Authoriser:

Dr Anna Johnson - City Development Manager

David Ward - General Manager, 3 Waters and Transition

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft Terms of Reference for the Otepoti Dunedin Heritage Action Plan - Advisory Panel	68

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

This decision promotes the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Economic Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Arts and Culture Strategy	✔	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Future Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

The Heritage Action Plan contributes to the strategic framework strategies noted above.

Māori Impact Statement

It is proposed that mana whenua are represented on the Ōtepoti Dunedin Heritage Action Plan – Advisory Panel.

Sustainability

Supporting reuse of heritage buildings contributes to sustainability noting the carbon footprint of demolition and rebuilding.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Not applicable.

Financial considerations

None at this stage.

Significance

This report is considered to be of low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

None as part of preparation of this report.

Engagement - internal

None as part of preparation of this report.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Council

25 November 2024

Strategic Walking and cycling review

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways plan. It sets out a vision for Dunedin’s future walking and cycling network and provides a prioritised programme of walking and cycling infrastructure projects. The plan replaces the Dunedin Urban Cycleways (DUC) programme that was included in the 2018-28 10-Year Plan and the Strategic Walking and Cycling Network developed in 2011 and included in the Integrated Transport Strategy. Since 2013 30% of the 2011 strategic cycling network has been delivered.The Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways plan resets and reprioritises our walking and cycling network vision and work programme. A range of options have been assessed and a preferred programme developed that focuses investment on new commuter routes and connecting existing infrastructure.

2 If the programme were to be fully implemented, the cost is estimated to be $145.6million (based on 2023 construction cost estimates). The programme has a high benefit cost ratio. NZTA co-funding is unlikely due to the Government’s significant shift in transport priorities and constrained funding environment.

3 Given the scale of the investment required to deliver the programme and lack of co-funding, planning work on the plan has largely been paused until there is greater certainty around funding.

4 Improving Dunedin’s walking and cycling network makes it easier and safer for people to walk and cycle to destinations across Dunedin and contributes to our Zero Carbon 2030 goals.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the update on the Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways plan.

b) Notes that capital funding for the Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways plan is not provided for in Transport’s draft Capital budget but elements of the programme will be included in the Zero Carbon High and Medium investment packages for consideration as part of the 9 year plan.

BACKGROUND

Strategic context

5 In 2011 Council developed Strategic Walking and Cycling Networks (Strategic Networks) to provide a long-term vision. The Strategic Networks were incorporated into the Integrated Transport Strategy in 2013.

6 The Integrated Transport Strategy aims to increase travel choice and includes active mode (walking, cycling and public transport) share goals for Dunedin.

7 In 2018, NZTA (New Zealand Transport Agency) requested DCC to review its Strategic Walking and Cycling Networks, as the 2011 plan was outdated and could no longer be accepted as a basis for co-funding. That review led to the development of the Dunedin Urban Cycleways programme.

8 The DCC’s Zero Carbon Plan identifies significant improvements to walking and cycling networks as a key catalyst the step change in use of active transport that is required to achieve emissions reduction goals.

9 The Future Development Strategy (FDS) 2024 envisages the provision of safe, convenient, and attractive walking and cycling infrastructure to support growth, and access to opportunities as a key aspect of a well-functioning urban environment.

Cycling networks

10 The strategic cycling network has been progressively delivered through the Dunedin Urban Cycleways (DUC) programme. Investment has targeted delivering safe, accessible, and direct cycle routes.

11 The DUC programme has delivered the following projects:

c) South Dunedin cycle network (2013 – 2015, partially completed)

d) South Dunedin connection between Andersons Bay and St Kilda (completed 2015)

e) Water of Leith walking and cycling bridge (completed in 2018)

f) Peninsula Connection project (2013 – not yet complete)

g) NZTA’s Dunedin SH1 Separated Cycle Lanes project (2017 – 2020)

h) NZTA’s SH88 Shared Path project between St Leonards and Port Chalmers (completed 2023).

i) Harbour Link (Completed 2024)

12 Approximately 30% of the strategic cycling network has been delivered to date. The DCC projects have attracted 51% co-funding from NZTA.

13 These new cycling routes mean that cycling has become an available choice for everyday trips. Nonetheless, most routes still have gaps or don’t connect well to the central city or other destinations.

14 A revised DUC programme was adopted by Council in December 2018 and included in the 10-year plan 2021-31, with a budget allocation of $21.9m.

Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Cr Aaron Hawkins):

That the Council:

a) Approves the Dunedin Urban Cycleways programme – programme 8 for submission to NZ Transport Agency.

Motion carried (CNL/2018/152) with Cr Vandervis recording his vote against.

15 The revised programme included the following three projects:

a) Dunedin Tunnels Trail

b) Safer Streets

c) North East Valley Cycleway

16 As part of the 2022 Annual Plan staff provided updated costs on the DUC programme, noting that due to revised costs, projects needed to be prioritised and/or funding increased. Advice at the time was that the Tunnels Trail was most likely to attract NZTA co-funding so council made a resolution to prioritise investment in the Tunnels Trail.

Moved (Cr Rachel Elder/Cr Steve Walker):

That the Council:

Amends the timing and approves a $11.4m increase to Dunedin Urban Cycleways budget to deliver the Tunnels Trail from Mosgiel to Dunedin.

Division

The Council voted by division:

For: Crs David Benson-Pope, Sophie Barker, Rachel Elder, Christine Garey, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Mike Lord, Jim O'Malley, Jules Radich, Chris Staynes, Steve Walker, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Aaron Hawkins (13).

Against: Cr Lee Vandervis (1).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 13 votes to 1

Motion carried (CAPCC/2022/013)

17 Accounting for cost escalations since 2022, staff have again revised the cost estimates to complete the Tunnels Trail, and these will be considered as part of the 9 year plan.

Walking networks

18 Dunedin’s walking network mainly consists of footpaths, crossing points and paths. There are network deficiencies with lack of crossing points along certain routes and at key destinations such as bus stops, outside shops, schools, etc. Further, 23% of streets in urban Dunedin don’t have a footpath on at least one side of the street.

19 The strategic walking network has been progressively delivered through projects such as the George Street upgrade project and implementing slower speeds and new crossing points outside schools. A programme of new drop curbs and reducing crossing distances at intersections has been delivered as part of our routine renewals work but contribute towards the strategic walking network improvements.

Other related programmes

20 The walking and cycling improvements included in 10 Year Plan 2021-31 under the Shaping Future Dunedin Transport (SFDT) programme are as follows:

a) Princes Street Bus Priority and Corridor Safety Plan

b) Central Cycle and Pedestrian Improvements – which includes:

· Albany Street Connections (detailed design completed, NZTA co-funding approved)

· St Andrew Street improvements, State Highway to Local Road (not started, awaiting outcomes on NZTA’s SH88 business case)

· Central City Bike Hubs (project currently being rescoped, NZTA co-funding unlikely)

21 Improvements to the central city walking and cycling opportunities will be incorporated into any future central city upgrade designs.

22 NZTA projects that include improvements for walking and cycling are as follows:

· SH88/St Andrew Street

· SH1 optimisation including the Pine Hill/Great King Street, and Andersons Bay Road/Southern Motorway intersections (currently in the business case phase).

23 Further DCC projects that are not related to the DUC or review of the strategic walking and cycling network but may influence or impact the walking and cycling network include:

a) Logan Park Reserve Management Plan

b) Town belt Reserve Management Plan

c) Botanic Gardens Masterplan

d) Signal Hill Reserve Management Plan

e) Parks Recreation Tracks and Open Spaces Plan

DISCUSSION

Ōtepoti- Dunedin Pathways – a walking and cycling plan

24 The Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways programme was started in 2022 to reset and reprioritise our walking and cycling network vision, including projects that formerly sat in the DUC programme. The desired outcome of this work was a prioritised 10-year investment programme with a 30-year masterplan that informs long term planning.

25 During February and March 2023 DCC engaged with key stakeholders and user groups to explore issues and opportunities. Common themes included the need for safer crossings and connecting routes.

26 In line with the NZTA Business Case approach, partners and key stakeholders participated in a series of workshops between December 2022 and April 2023 to develop and assess options for investment in walking and cycling.

27 To prioritise the work, staff used the NZTA tools in the economic evaluation model to inform investment priorities. The following benefits are examples of the kinds of inputs used to offset against the capital costs;

· Health benefits

· Safety benefits

· Reduction in carbon emissions

· Travel time benefits

28 The preferred programme focuses investment on implementing new walking and cycling routes and connecting existing infrastructure. This is to create a safe and connected network across the city, that links key destinations, including activity centres, schools, and the tertiary precinct. The programme required a step change in investment, with an estimated cost of $145.6m (if it was built in 2023). The benefit cost ratio (BCR) is 3.1.

29 To prioritise planning and delivery, the programme was split into ‘clusters’ of walking and cycling network initiatives with ’routes’ that link between them. Routes and clusters were assessed and then prioritised based on number of potential users, considering school and general travel demand as well as equity and connectivity with existing routes.

30 The focus on prioritising areas of high activity was driven by a desire to attract the greatest number of potential new users to achieve mode shift goals under the Zero Carbon Plan and meet NZTA’s funding requirements at the time. A consequence of this is that many routes desired by the community, including Waldronville to Brighton, and the final stage of the Peninsula Connection, were not included in the preferred programme.

31 Based on this methodology the Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways programme identified the top ten routes and clusters as:

a) City Centre Cluster (includes Waterfront Bridge)

b) Tunnels Trail City Link Route (between Caversham and Central City)

c) South Dunedin Schools to Andersons Bay Route

d) Hills Suburbs Cluster (includes Roslyn, Maori Hill, Helensburgh, Wakari and Halfway Bush)

e) Kenmure to Hills Suburbs Kaikorai Valley Rd Route

f) City Centre to Andersons Bay Route

g) South Dunedin Schools Cluster

h) Calton Hill Route

i) Prince Albert/King Edward St Route

j) Mosgiel Cluster

Programme delivery

32 There has been a significant shift in central government priorities and general economic climate. The Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways Plan was developed in a context of co-funding where there was a focus on developing walking and cycling programmes to facilitate mode shift, reduction in vehicle kilometres travelled and zero carbon targets.

33 Lower Speed Limits were being implemented near schools and activity centres which supported safe walking and cycling in a mixed road environment.

34 The 2024 Government Policy Statement for transport now prioritises economic growth and productivity and road maintenance and resilience. The setting of speed limits rule has been changed, and many lowered speed limits in urban areas will be reverted to 50km/h.

35 There is no co-funding for new walking and cycling improvements in the 2024-2027 National Land Transport Plan. This does not apply to existing projects that NZTA has committed to such as the Albany St Connection project.

36 Staff have revised the Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways 2023 programme to identify network priorities, connections with existing routes and interrelationships with other DCC work programmes.

37 The revised 10-year walking and cycling improvements programme includes (in no particular order):

· Tunnels Trail city link route (between Caversham and the Central City)

· Vogel Street improvements - to interface with the SH1 NZTA work

· Queens Drive improvements – to support work led by the Parks and Recreation team.

· Missing link at the Gardens - to coordinate with the SH1 improvements at Pine Hill intersection.

· One cycling route between the Central City and the Hill Suburbs.

38 The revised programme will be considered alongside other priority projects for inclusion in Zero Carbon High and Medium investment packages, to be considered as part of the 9 year plan.

OPTIONS

39 As this is a noting report, there are no options.

NEXT STEPS

40 The revised 10-year walking and cycling improvements programme will be considered alongside other priority projects for inclusion in the Zero Carbon High and Medium investment packages for consideration as part of the 9 year plan.

Signatories

Author:

Helen Chapman - Senior Transport Planner

Simone Handwerk - Transport Planning Team Leader

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

No decision is sought. This is a noting paper.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	✔
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Future Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

The Ōtepoti- Dunedin pathways programme would contribute to the Integrated Transport Strategy, Zero Carbon Plan and Future Development Strategy objectives.

Māori Impact Statement

Mana whenua were consulted during the development of the Otepoti Dunedin Pathways Programme business case and advised their preference is to be involved at the design and development phase.

Sustainability

No decision is sought in this paper. Implementation of Ōtepoti- Dunedin pathways would contribute to environmental and social sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Decisions on investment in the Ōtepoti- Dunedin pathways programme will be made as part of the 2025-2034 9 year plan.

Zero carbon

The DCC’s Zero Carbon Plan identifies significant improvements to walking and cycling networks as a key catalyst for the step change in use of active transport that is required to achieve emissions reduction goals. Delivery of the Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways programme was an action in the Zero Carbon Plan indicative action list. The revised programme will be considered alongside other priority projects for inclusion in the Zero Carbon High and Medium investment packages for consideration as part of the 9 year plan.

Financial considerations

Decisions on investment in the Ōtepoti- Dunedin pathways programme will be made as part of the 2025-2034 9 year plan.

Significance

This is considered low in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

User group and stakeholder engagement was undertaken in 2023 during the development of the programme. Further consultation and engagement may be undertaken as part of the 2025-2034 long term plan or is subject to decisions made as part of the 2025-2034 long term plan.

Engagement - internal

Engagement has occurred with the Transport, Parks and Zero Carbon departments and the Director Central City Plan.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks

Conflict of Interest

There are no identified conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

This paper has no implication for Community Boards. Decisions will be made as part of the 25-2034 long term plan, and Community Boards will have the opportunity to provide input through that process.

Council

25 November 2024

Hearings Committee Recommendations on Dog Control Bylaw and Policy Review

Department: Civic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report presents the recommendations of the Hearings Committee (the Committee) on the amended Dog Control Bylaw (the Bylaw) and amended Dog Control Policy (the Policy) following a review.

2 It recommends the Council adopts the Bylaw (Attachment A) and the Policy (Attachment B) with a date of effect for both of 5 May 2025. See Attachment C for a summary of the Committee’s recommendations which are reflected in the Bylaw and the Policy.

3 Recommended changes to the Bylaw and the Policy aim to:

· Improve opportunities for the recreational needs of dogs and their owners, for example recommending that dogs are allowed on leash in some commercial areas such as the Octagon where they are currently prohibited.

· Protect wildlife and minimise the potential for danger, distress or nuisance, by requiring, for example, that:

i) dogs must be on leash in all coastal dune areas, including access paths

ii) the number of dogs an owner may have on leash in a public place is limited to six without written permission.

· Make the Bylaw and the Policy clearer and simpler, providing explanatory notes and removing duplication, for example of maps.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes that the Hearings Committee has heard and considered submissions on the proposed Dog Control Bylaw and Dog Control Policy

b) Notes the minutes of the Hearings Committee (Attachment D)

c) Adopts the amended Dog Control Bylaw (Attachment A)

d) Adopts the amended Dog Control Policy (Attachment B)

e) Approves a date of effect for the Dog Control Bylaw and Dog Control Policy of 5 May 2025.

BACKGROUND

Council resolutions

4 In August 2023, the Council resolved to commence review of the Bylaw and the Policy. The review must be carried out under requirements of the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act) and the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

5 Following review that included early engagement, the Customer and Regulatory Committee, on 21 May 2024, approved a draft Bylaw and draft Policy and adopted a statement of proposal for consultation.

Proposed Policy and Bylaw

6 The proposed Policy aimed to balance the requirements of the Act – that in adopting the Policy, the Council must have regard to:

· the need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally

· the need to avoid danger from dogs having uncontrolled access to public places frequented by children

· the importance of public use of public places without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs, and

· the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and dog owners.

7 Dog control bylaws are required to give effect to the mandatory Policy. Bylaws cannot be inconsistent with the Policy. The Act requires that a dog control bylaw must be reviewed in accordance with the LGA. A dog control policy must be reviewed at the same time as the dog control bylaw is reviewed.

8 For further background information on the Act requirements, see Attachment E, the report to the Hearings Committee on consultation results.

DISCUSSION

Community engagement

9 Formal consultation took place from 10 June until 21 July 2024, using the special consultative procedure. Engagement methods included sending information to dog owners, advertising on the DCC website, social media pages, on the Otago Daily Times noticeboard and in The Star, a media release, and “FYI” article. Key stakeholders were advised of the review and invited to comment. Stakeholders include the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Community Boards, rῡnaka, Yellow-Eyed Penguin Trust, Wildlife Hospital, Department of Conservation, Blind Foundation, the Police, surf lifesaving clubs, Athletics Otago, bird clubs, dog owners and non-dog owners.

Results of consultation

10 There were 606 submissions made on the Bylaw and the Policy. Submissions were from individuals as well as organisations. There were two late submissions which the Committee resolved to accept.

11 See Attachment E for the summary of consultation results. Results of early engagement, including consultation documents, and public submissions, can be found at www.dunedin.govt.nz/dogs-bylaw

12 Consultation results showed:

· There was good support for most of the proposals with two thirds or more supporting proposals for:

o Octagon, Princes St and George St between Exchange and Knox Church

o King Edward St and South Dunedin between Hillside and Macandrew Roads

o Ross Creek tracks

o Te Rauone Beach

o Pῡrākaunui Beach

o Mosgiel Memorial Garden track

o Woodside Glen unformed legal roads

o Fraser Gully Recreation Reserve track

o Jubilee Park tracks

o Bethunes Gully picnic area

o McGouns track

o Exempting dogs from restrictions with permission

o Playgrounds definition

o Removing the requirement to display a dog poo bag, and

o Right of review for dog owners.

· Views were more divided about proposals for:

o Limiting the number of dogs a person may have in their charge in a public place

o Coastal dune areas

o Beach adjacent to Westwood Recreation Reserve, and

o Caledonian Grounds.

· The most common topics for comment were:

o Limiting the number of dogs a person may have in their charge in a public place

o Octagon, Princes St and George St between Exchange and Knox Church

o Beach adjacent to Westwood Recreation Reserve, and

o Minimising the potential for danger, distress or nuisance.

Committee recommendations

Hearings and deliberations

13 The Committee met on 26 and 27 September, and 29 October to consider submissions, hear from 28 submitters, and deliberate.

14 The Committee deliberated on all proposals, and it recommends that the Council adopts the proposals with the following exceptions:

· Te Rauone Beach – retain the status quo of dogs on leash to protect wildlife at this beach

· Pῡrākaunui Beach – retain the status quo of dogs on leash to protect wildlife at this beach

· Beach adjacent to Westwood Beach – retain the status quo of dogs off leash with signage at both entrances alerting the public to horses using the beach, that dogs must be under control at all times, and to keep dogs a reasonable distance from horses.

· Dog number limits - limiting the number of dogs a person may have in their charge in a public place to six without written permission (a permit); if a permit is granted then the owner must comply with conditions that the Council thinks fit.

15 A summary of the Committee’s recommendations is at Attachment C. The amended Bylaw and amended Policy reflect the Committee’s recommendations. Minutes of the hearings and deliberations are at Attachment D.

16 For reference, the current Dog Control Bylaw is at Attachment F and the current Dog Control Policy is at Attachment G. A guidance map showing proposed rules for specific public places, and which incorporates Hearings Committee recommendations is here: https://dunedin.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/sidebar/index.html?appid=f7e4e688c5cf442cb37307db29c5e1a0

Requirements of the Act

17 In its deliberations, the Committee has had regard for the matters set out in the Act (refer to paragraph 6).

Signage and communication

18 The Committee notes the importance of effective communications including updating signage on any changes to the dog control rules. Specific areas for attention are noted in the summary of recommendations.

Implementation date

19 The Committee recommends a date of effect of 5 May 2025 for the Bylaw and the Policy. This will allow sufficient time to prepare for any changes, for example communicating changes to dog owners and the public, and updating signage.

To be noted for next review

20 The Committee notes some other areas were identified for possible attention during consultation. These would require further consultation for any change and are to be noted for the next review, for example rules at:

· Doctors Point

· Long Beach

· Headlands and river mouths

· St Clair Beach.

OPTIONS

21 Options are to accept the Committee’s recommendations or refer the Bylaw and Policy back to the Committee for further consideration.

Option One – Accept recommendations of Committee (Recommended Option)

22 This option is to adopt the amended Bylaw and amended Policy.

Advantages

· Improves opportunities for the recreational needs of dogs and their owners

· Protects wildlife and minimises the potential for danger, distress or nuisance

· Makes the Bylaw and Policy clearer and easier to understand.

Disadvantages

· Some changes may be more restrictive for dog owners

· Some changes may cause increased concern for some about the potential for danger, distress or nuisance.

Option Two – Refer the Bylaw and Policy back to the Committee for further consideration

Advantages

· The Committee has further opportunity to consider changes to the Bylaw and the Policy.

Disadvantages

· This could impact the proposed implementation timeframe for the Bylaw and Policy.

NEXT STEPS

23 If the Council adopt the Bylaw and the Policy, then staff will work towards implementing the Bylaw and the Policy on 5 May 2025.

Signatories

Authoriser:

Bill Acklin - Chairperson, Hearings Committee

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇨a	Amended Dog Control Bylaw (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨b	Amended Dog Control Policy (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨c	Summary of Hearings Committee recommendations (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨d	Minutes Hearings Committee - Dog Control Bylaw (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨e	Report to Hearings Committee on results of consultation (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨f	Current Dog Control Bylaw 2016 (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨g	Current Dog Control Policy 2016 (Under Separate Cover 1)

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities and promotes the social well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Environment Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	✔
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Future Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Parks and Recreation Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

Review of the Bylaw and Policy contributes to priorities of ‘safe people’ in the Social Wellbeing Strategy; ‘healthy environment’ in Te Ao Tūroa; vibrant, safe, attractive and compelling destination in the Future Development Strategy; and ‘treasuring parks’ and ‘open spaces supporting communities to thrive’ in the Parks and Recreation Strategy.

Māori Impact Statement

Local rūnaka were identified as stakeholders and engaged with as part of this review.

Sustainability

There are no specific implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for these strategies and plans.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications. Any changes to the Bylaw and Policy will be administered within existing operational budgets.

Significance

This decision is considered low-medium in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. There has been strong interest in the review with some divided views amongst the community.

Engagement – external

Early engagement was carried out in November 2023, followed by formal consultation in June/July 2024, using the special consultative procedure which must be used when reviewing the Bylaw and the Policy. Key stakeholders include Community Boards, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Yellow-Eyed Penguin Trust, Wildlife Hospital, Department of Conservation, Blind Foundation, the Police, surf lifesaving clubs, Athletics Otago, dog clubs as well as dog owners and non-dog owners.

Engagement - internal

There has been internal engagement with In-House Legal Counsel, Parks and Recreation, Governance, Web team, and Communications and Marketing.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified legal or health and safety risks with these recommendations. The draft Policy and draft Bylaw have had external legal review. Legal opinion was received about Woodside Glen.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards were identified as stakeholders and engaged with as part of this review.

Council

25 November 2024

Update on the Parking Management work stream as part of the Shaping Future Dunedin Transport programme

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the Central City Parking Management workstream, as part of the Shaping Future Dunedin Transport Programme.

2 Central City Parking Management as a project comprises deliverables to support better parking management in Dunedin City, including technological improvements to help support a vibrant city, and the New Dunedin Hospital.

3 Since 2022, work has been undertaken to support more accurate data collection, more reliable payment methods, more efficient parking enforcement and to provide a better parking experience for road users in Dunedin.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the Central City Parking Management work stream update.

BACKGROUND

4 Funding for the Shaping Future Dunedin Transport (SFDT) programme was included in the 2021– 2031 10 Year Plan.

5 The Central City Parking Management project (CCPM) is part of the SFDT programme. The purpose of the CCPM programme is to improve the efficiency and management of parking to ensure it meets community needs and to support access to, and around the New Dunedin Hospital.

6 To support the parking workstream, MRCagney developed a parking roadmap (attachment A) focussing on parking in central Dunedin. This included operational recommendations that could be implemented in advance of a parking strategy.

7 The operational recommendations from this report are noted below:

Recommendation

Develop a wayfinding signage plan for the city centre

Develop a business case for investment in parking technology

Develop a plan for collection of relevant data to inform decision making

Talk to car share operators about the potential of establishing a car share operation in central Dunedin

Build relationships with businesses to help with communication and collaboration

Start reducing lease parking from DCC off-street parking sites

Apply for EECA funding for EV charging facilities in the Great King car park.

8 On May 31, 2021, Council requested staff develop a work plan for the implementation of the recommendations in the MRCagney Dunedin Parking Roadmap, including improvements to parking technology, collection of data, introduction of wayfinding signage and the establishment of a car share service.

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Steve Walker):

That the Council:

c) Request staff develop a work plan for the implementation of the recommendations in the MRCagney Dunedin Parking Roadmap.

d) Notes that the work plan would be reported to the 3 August 2021 meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee.

Division:

The Council voted by division:

For: Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Rachel Elder, Christine Garey, Marie Laufiso, Mike Lord, Jim O'Malley, Chris Staynes, Steve Walker, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Aaron Hawkins (11).

Against: Crs Carmen Houlahan and Jules Radich (2).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 11 votes to 2

Motion carried (CNL/2021/112)

DISCUSSION

9 At the start of the parking management workstream, Dunedin had a complex parking environment, built on years of ad-hoc parking restriction changes. Aged and poorly maintained parking meters and dated enforcement technology meant that significant intervention was required to improve parking management in the city.

10 The project was initially scoped with a capital budget of $9.5 million. The project is being implemented in a phased approach because this is the most cost effective and strategic approach to managing central city parking.

11 Work to date includes simplifying the parking offering, reducing the number of zones, and adjusting pricing to help more accurately reflect the value of parking. Having access to improved technology, data and enforcement tools allows for better parking management.

12 The following projects have been included as part of this workstream:

Introduction of Pay by Plate parking meters

· Implemented in 2022.

· Through the project, a decision was made to install upgrades into existing meters to minimise capital costs.

· The upgraded meters no longer issue paper tickets, resulting in reduced operational costs, waste, carbon emissions and maintenance requirements. Prior to the upgrade, not all meters were able to accept credit cards and aged batteries meant that downtime was high. Meter downtime has reduced significantly since the new meters were installed.

· The number of meters across Dunedin reduced from approximately 330 to 264. Fewer meters are required because users do not need to return to their car to display a ticket. As part of the upgrade, credit card facilities were added to all meters and the 50 cent credit card fee was removed.

Simplification of parking zones

· Implemented in 2023.

· Prior to 2023, Dunedin had five different pricing zones and more than 20 tariffs, making the parking layout confusing for the public.

· In 2023, zones in the Central City were modified to have an Inner Zone ($3.50) and Outer Zone ($1.50), as well as a time-limited free parking zone along George and Princes Streets.

· The simplification of the zones makes the paid pricing areas more consistent and easier for the public to understand. The zones are, however, based on a historical context and changes to the city which include the revitalised warehouse precinct and location of the New Dunedin Hospital mean that the zoning and pricing should be reconsidered.

Figure 1 - Previous Parking Zone Prices & Restrictions

Introduction of Licence Plate Recognition (LPR) systems

· LPR barrier-arm systems installed into Great King Street, Wall Street and Lower Moray Place carparks in 2024.

· These systems provide the ability to monitor parking occupancy and, in some cases, replace aged barrier arms – providing an improved user experience and reduction in maintenance requirements.

· LPR counting systems (without barriers) will be considered for St Andrew Street and Thomas Burns Street carparks this financial year.

Licence Plate Recognition Parking Enforcement

· Planned for implementation in 2025.

· Procurement is underway for a new parking enforcement system, with the launch anticipated next financial year.

· The new system will allow officers to monitor parking compliance from within a vehicle, resulting in efficiency and health and safety benefits. It will also provide a safer working environment in adverse weather conditions and limit the abuse officers sometimes receive from the public because infringements do not need to be issued immediately.

· The new system will potentially remove the requirement for some paper parking permits to be issued, by allowing permits to be registered against licence plates, reducing costs and removing the need for officers to manually validate permits for enforcement.

Central City Parking Wayfinding.

· Implementation in the current year and through into 2025/26

· The project plan for wayfinding has been approved. The project will consider how best to implement parking wayfinding for the city. It will include static signage and explore displaying live parking availability on the DCC website.

· Electronic live availability signage will also be considered as part of the project, particularly for the southern and northern state highway approaches into the city. Systems to collect parking occupancy would need to be installed at selected sites. Installation costs will be considered as part of the 9 year plan.

· A parking availability app for mobile phones and devices will also be considered as part of the wayfinding work stream.

Dunedin Parking Strategy

· In line with the MRCagney Parking Roadmap report, the operational recommendations for central city parking management are being progressed in advance of the parking strategy for the city.

· In line with national guidance, the parking strategy will present draft parking hierarchies and occupancy targets. It will lay the groundwork for a review of pricing, parking permit schemes and development of area-based parking management plans.

· The strategy will be ready for public consultation in FY 25/26.

Establishment of a Car Share scheme in Dunedin

· Staff had worked with a preferred provider under a Memorandum of Understanding to establish a car sharing service in Dunedin. The MoU lapsed in July 2024.

· To establish a public car sharing operation in Dunedin, this provider requires DCC provide parking spaces, either at minimal or no-charge. The potential cost to Council associated with this will be considered as part of the 9YP deliberations.

Financials

13 The capital budget for Central City Parking Management for 2024/25 is $700,000, broken down as follows:

a) $100,000 to deliver off street parking LPR and other parking technology

b) $500,000 to deliver LPR Parking enforcement

c) $100,000 for Central City Parking Wayfinding

14 An additional $800,000 is allocated to parking management in the 25/26 and $200,000 in the 26/27 capital budgets as part of the 9YP.

15 Projects included within the parking management workstream are not eligible for NZTA co-funding.

OPTIONS

16 As this is a noting report there are no options.

NEXT STEPS

17 Staff will procure an enforcement solution this financial year.

18 Staff will consider implementation of counting technology at off-street parking locations.

19 Staff will scope and assess options for wayfinding and begin work on procuring the preferred option(s) in 2025, to be delivered before June 30, 2026.

20 Staff will continue working on the parking strategy.

21 Information will be provided to Council for the 9YP deliberations regarding the financial implications of car share.

Signatories

Author:

Abbey Chamberlain - Senior Transport Planner

Simon Spiers - Team Leader - Regulation Management

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Dunedin Parking Roadmap	97

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This report promotes the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	✔
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Future Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

Improvements to parking support a safe, efficient and accessible transport network, and supports the social and economic wellbeing of Dunedin communities.

Māori Impact Statement

Mana whenua have expressed support for a safe and efficient transport network.

Sustainability

Proactive parking management improves efficiency and access to the transport network, which contribute to sustainability goals.

Zero carbon

The DCC’s Zero Carbon Plan identifies establishment and promotion of car share, and alignment of parking management with emissions reduction goals as action areas for the DCC. ‘Facilitate establishment of commercial car share in Dunedin’ and ‘Develop a Parking Management Policy that aligns with Zero Carbon goals’ are actions in the Zero Carbon Plan implementation plan 2023/24.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This paper aligns with the LTP and Infrastructure Strategy.

Financial considerations

Costs for implementing the Central City Parking Management workstream are budgeted through the Shaping Future Dunedin Transport work programme.

Significance

The report is considered of low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

As this is an update report no external engagement has been undertaken.

Engagement - internal

As this is an update report, no internal engagement has been undertaken.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards as part of this report.

Council

25 November 2024

Climate change significant forecasting assumptions - 9 year plan 2025-34

Department: Sustainability Group and Climate and City Growth

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to set out the intended approach to integrating climate change considerations into the 9 year plan 2025-34, and to seek Council approval of the climate change aspects of the significant forecasting assumptions.

2 This report also provides information about the growing expectations of regulatory bodies for councils to consider and address climate change, as well as an overview of national and local emissions context and commitments, and climate projections.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the intended approach to integrating climate change considerations into the 9 year plan

b) Approves, for the purposes of developing the 9 year plan 2025-34, and consulting with the community, the climate-related significant forecasting assumptions at Attachment A

c) Delegates authority to the CEO to make any minor amendments to the climate-related significant forecasting assumptions

d) Notes the climate-related significant forecasting assumptions may need updating following upcoming Council and Government decisions.

BACKGROUND

Climate change and Long Term Plans

3 The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires that all local authorities develop a Long Term Plan (LTP). Schedule 10 of the LGA specifies the minimum information and content; this includes significant forecasting assumptions (SFAs), which include growth and economic assumptions along with climate change projections.

4 Climate-related considerations are a growing focus area for auditors assessing local government Long Term Plans (LTP). In recent years, the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) has stressed the need for councils to address climate change risk. The OAG has noted that councils have an important role in understanding, planning for, and responding to the effects of climate change given their roles in environmental planning and regulation, transport planning, and responding to natural hazards and extreme weather events. For the 2023/24 financial year Audit New Zealand had a focus on climate change targets and reporting. A recent OAG report reviewed four Councils’ climate work and set out five recommendations for Councils.

5 A key purpose of local government under the LGA is to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future. Climate change mitigation (reducing emissions) and adaptation (preparing for the impacts of climate change) reduces long term risks and costs for council and the community, promotes future wellbeing, and responds to community expectations of climate action.

6 A report by Deloitte estimates that inadequate climate action could cost the New Zealand economy $4.4 billion by 2050, with losses becoming exponentially worse after that. On the other hand, decisive climate action could deliver $64 billion to New Zealand’s economy by 2050.

7 For the Dunedin City Council (DCC), building emissions reduction and climate adaptation considerations into decision-making also responds to Council’s strategic direction and the Zero Carbon Policy 2022.

Best practice guidance relating to climate change issued prior to 2021-31 LTPs

8 Having found most councils’ 2018-28 LTPs inadequately addressed climate change, the OAG and local government membership bodies published extensive advice on their expectations for 2021-31 LTPs. Climate change assumptions and disclosures were a focus for OAG auditors when auditing the 2021-31 LTPs, as was assessing the steps that councils were taking to reduce emissions and whether they were prioritising climate action.

9 The OAG recommended that councils should actively seek to understand the potential effects of climate change on its assets and activities, and that assumptions about climate change and its effects should be key building blocks for LTPs. All assumptions underpinning the LTPs should use the best available information, and climate change and related matters should be woven through the content of the LTP and the processes that support the LTP. Climate change assumptions should cover:

· the expected effects of climate change for the city

· the effects on council activities from the expected effects of climate change

· the effects on different communities across the city

· the effects of climate change on levels of service, council finances, and capital and operational work programmes over the period of the LTP.

10 The OAG articulated an expectation that councils that have declared climate emergencies should be demonstrating a tangible response of accelerating climate mitigation/adaptation activity, in the form of governance, management, and prioritisation of council activity and investment.

OAG findings relating to climate change in 2021-31 LTPs

11 In matters arising from audits of the 2021-31 LTPs, the OAG noted a marked improvement in consideration of climate change.

12 They singled out two shifts as being particularly positive:

· the increasing number of councils with dedicated climate action plans and resources, or those that are working on them, and

· councils beginning to put climate-related performance targets and measures in their plans, and in some cases aligning reporting against these with recently developed national reporting standards.

13 They generally observed that the 17 councils that had declared climate emergencies (including the DCC), had included tangible actions or programmes relating to mitigating or adaptation to the effects of climate change in their LTPs, and noted that these were priority areas of council activity.

14 Specific references to the DCC’s 2021-31 LTP included:

· highlighting the DCC as an example of councils considering the equity or social justice aspects of climate change (in relation to building resilience and planning for long-term adaptation in South Dunedin) and

· the DCC’s 2030 emissions reduction target for Dunedin.

2024 OAG review of Councils’ climate work

15 The OAG recently released a report reviewing climate work in four Councils. The report states that:

“in many ways, councils are at the front line of a wider response to climate change. Councils are largely responsible for civil defence, regional and district land use, planning, and major community infrastructure. They are the owners of significant assets, some of which are at risk because of climate change. They also have a role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Councils have obligations to keep their communities and assets safe from the impacts of a changing climate. They also have a responsibility to consult and keep their communities informed about the scenarios they are planning for and the steps they are taking to protect people and property.”

16 The OAG’s recommendations are set out in the table below, along with the proposed DCC approach for progressing these through the Zero Carbon work programme and LTP. The recommendations also apply to climate change adaptation work at Councils. This will be considered in the context of citywide climate resilience planning.

OAG Recommendation for Councils

Proposed approach for 9 Year Plan and/or Zero Carbon work programme

Take opportunities to collaborate with and assist each other to understand the current and likely impacts of a changing climate on their infrastructure and communities.

Collaboration is already a key part of the existing Zero Carbon work programme. Existing collaborative relationships include: collaborating with the Otago Regional Council, participation in the Otago and nationwide climate officers groups, the Zero Carbon Alliance, and working alongside DCHL.

Make clear in climate strategies:

- what their climate-related objectives are,

- how they intend to achieve those objectives,

- how they will use their strategies to set priorities, and

- how they will measure and report on progress in implementing their strategies.

Zero Carbon Policy, Zero Carbon Plan, and DCC Emissions Management and Reduction Plan (EMRP) set clear objectives.

The implementation of the Zero Carbon Plan and EMRP will be finalised through 9 Year Plan investment decisions.

A monitoring and reporting framework for implementation will then be developed.

Strengthen the use of performance measures that reflect climate-related strategic objectives and priorities.

Report publicly on progress with their climate change strategies and work programmes, to support accountability and so communities are well-informed, engaged, and supportive.

The Zero Carbon team has provided advice relating to ways climate-related goals and targets can be reflected in levels of service and associated performance measures.

A monitoring and reporting framework for implementation will be developed following finalisation of the Zero Carbon Implementation Plan (including EMRP actions).

Clearly set out how climate-related activities will be governed and ensure that staff understand what information the relevant governance body needs to govern effectively.

A Zero Carbon Advisory Panel has recently been established. Governance of the work programme sits with Council and the Strategy, Planning and Engagement Committee.

For the 9 Year Plan, in line with the Zero Carbon Policy 2022, all proposed capital expenditure and all new proposed operating expenditure is being assessed for potential emissions impact.

A Zero Carbon impact statement section will be added to Council report templates, to provide Councillors with information about the emissions impact of decisions. Guidance for staff has also been prepared.

OAG direction relating to the 9 year plan, and signalled areas of focus

17 With climate-related reporting increasing in prominence, the OAG is strengthening assurance over climate-related reporting, decision making and planning processes through their annual audits.

18 In addition to the recommendations set out above, the OAG has set out updated expectations in the OAG’s standard annual reporting, and several guidance documents relating to climate change reporting and financial statements have been published. Audit New Zealand had a strong focus on climate change reporting for the 2023/24 Annual Report.

19 Specifically, the OAG expects that:

a) 2024-34 LTPs will improve further on climate related content and approaches.

b) statements about climate change targets and progress will be clear, transparent and avoid greenwashing.

c) climate change will be included in performance measures and financial reporting.

20 In matters arising from audits of 2021-31 LTPs, the OAG noted that as councils develop their next LTP, they could consider the opportunity to take a strong leadership role in climate action in their district or region.

Emissions reduction targets and emissions profiles

21 This section sets out national, local and organisational emissions reduction targets relevant to 9YP decision making, as well as the most recent information available on city and organisational emissions sources.

National emissions reduction targets

22 As a signatory of the Paris Agreement, New Zealand has committed to taking actions that limit global warming to 1.5°C and to meeting a ‘net zero’ emissions by 2050 target. Domestic emissions reduction targets are embedded in the Climate Change Response Act 2002:

a) Net zero emissions of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions other than biogenic methane by 2050.

b) 24% to 47% reduction in biogenic methane emissions below 2017 levels by 2050, including 10% reduction below 2017 levels by 2030.”

Dunedin emissions reduction targets and 2021/22 emissions

23 In 2019, the DCC declared a climate emergency and adopted a ‘Zero Carbon 2030’ emissions reduction target for Dunedin. As with national commitments, the target is in two parts:

a) Net zero emissions of all GHG emissions other than biogenic methane by 2030.

b) 24% to 47% reduction below 2017 biogenic methane emissions by 2050, including 10% reduction below 2017 biogenic methane emissions by 2030.

24 Dunedin’s gross emissions in 2021/22 totalled 1.542 million tCO₂e. The main contributing sectors were Agriculture and Transport, followed by Stationary Energy, Waste and Industrial Processes and Product Use (IPPU) (Figure 1). This was offset by the city’s forests absorbing 0.493 million t CO₂-e, reducing net emissions to 1.049 million tCO₂e.

Figure 1: Dunedin City emissions 2021/22

25 There was some progress towards the target between 2018/19 and 2021/22. Total gross emissions in Dunedin decreased from 1,697,047 tCO2e to 1,542,500 tCO2e, a decrease of 9% (154,546 tCO2e). Each sector reduced its emissions between 2018/19 and 2021/22 (Figure 1).

26 Over this time, the population of the city increased by 2%, resulting in per capita gross emissions in Dunedin reducing by 11% between 2018/19 and 2021/22 (from 13.0 to 11.5 tCO2e per person per year), in line with the decrease in total gross emissions.

27 Trends in emissions will be set out in further detail in the draft City Snapshot, in a future Council report.

28 The city’s emissions profile will be updated again in 2025 using 2024/25 data.

DCC’s emissions reduction targets and 2022/23 emissions

29 The DCC’s emissions reduction targets for its organisational footprint are set out in Table 1 below.

Target	2018/19 Baseline (tCO2e)	Target date
30% reduction in annual tCO2e emissions	84,216	2026/27
42% reduction in annual tCO2e emissions	84,216	2030/31

30 DCC’s gross emissions for the 2022/23 period totalled 60,912 tCO₂-e. Major emissions sources (Figure 2) were waste to Green Island Landfill (52%), closed landfills (13%), and wastewater treatment (12%). Relatively fewer emissions originated from major suppliers (9%), electricity use (4%) LPG use (4%), and chemical use (3%). Other minor emissions sources made up the final 3% of the footprint. DCC’s 2023/24 emissions inventory is still subject to audit assurance. Council will be updated on the results once this process is complete.

Figure 2: DCC emissions 2022/23

31 There has also been some progress towards DCC organisation emissions targets. As of 2022/23, DCC emissions had reduced by 27.67% compared to the 2018/19 baseline.

Risk and adaptation frameworks, and projected climate change impacts

32 This section describes the national frameworks established to assess risk and adapt to climate change and sets out current understanding of projected national and local climate change impacts.

National climate change risk and adaptation frameworks

33 In August 2020, the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) published the first National Climate Change Risk Assessment (NCCRA), which acknowledged that the climate is changing and that further changes will result from increasing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

34 The NCCRA noted that in New Zealand, the effects of this change are already being experienced. Over the past century, temperatures have increased, glaciers have melted and sea levels have risen. Such changes will continue, and their impacts will increase. These future changes will have far-reaching consequences for people and the environment – in cities, towns and communities, across all levels of government, and from the coastline to lakes, rivers and forests.

35 New Zealand’s 10 most significant climate change risks (across five domains) include:

· Natural environment: Risk to coastal ecosystems due to ongoing sea-level rise and extreme weather events; risk to indigenous ecosystems and species from enhanced spread, survival and establishment of invasive species.

· Human: Risks to social cohesion and community wellbeing from displacement of individuals families and communities; risk of exacerbating existing inequalities and creating new ones.

· Economy: Risk of lost productivity, disaster relief expenditure and unfunded contingent liabilities; risks to financial system from instability due to extreme weather events and ongoing gradual changes.

· Built environment: Risk to potable water supplies (availability and quality) and buildings due to changes in rainfall, temperature, drought, wildfire, extreme weather events and ongoing sea-level rise.

· Governance: Risk of maladaptation due to decisions that do not account for uncertainty and change over long timeframes; risk that climate change impacts are exacerbated because current institutional arrangements are not fit for adaptation.

36 In August 2022, and in response to the NCCRA, MfE published the first National Adaptation Plan (NAP) 2022-28, which outlined a national structure and set of processes for adapting to the impacts of a changing climate in Aotearoa New Zealand.

37 The NAP noted that adaptation is a continuous process of assessing and managing risk, evaluating the effectiveness of actions taken and adjusting those actions as needed. By adapting to the unavoidable effects of climate change, we become more resilient to those risks. Climate change is exacerbating the risks of existing natural hazards – including flooding and drought – and creating new risks such as sea-level rise. We can build on our past experience with natural hazards to prepare for increased risk in the future.

38 The four key focus areas of the NAP 2022-28 include:

· Better risk-informed decisions

· Climate-resilient development in the right location

· Adaptation options including managed retreat

· Embed climate resilience across government

Projected climate change impacts

39 The following projections for climate change impacts are derived from the NCCRA, NAP, research undertaken by NIWA on climate change projections for the Otago Region (commissioned by the Otago Regional Council in 2019), and the Aotearoa New Zealand climate change projections guidance: Interpreting the latest IPCC WG1 report findings (commissioned by MfE in 2022, updated in 2023).

· In the last 100 years, our climate has warmed by 1.1°C. Depending on global emissions, temperatures will likely increase by a further 1-1.3°C by mid-century and 1.6-3.1°C by end of century, with the greatest warming likely to be in the northeast of New Zealand.

· In the last 60 years, sea levels have risen by 0.15 m (or around 2.44 mm per year). If global emissions remain high, sea levels will likely increase by a further 0.21 m by 2040 and 0.67 m by 2090.

· Extreme weather events such as storms, heatwaves and heavy rainfall are likely to be more frequent and intense. Large increases in extreme rainfall are expected everywhere in the country. Annual rainfall in Otago is expected to increase slightly by mid-century (0-10%), while the increase spans 10-20% at the end of the century.

· The number of frost and snow days are projected to decrease.

· Drought is predicted to increase in frequency and severity, particularly along the eastern side of the Southern Alps. Wildfire risk is predicted to increase.

Guidance on planning for, and adapting to, the impacts of climate change

40 Further to requirements of the LGA in regard to LTP processes, and directions issued by the OAG in relation to climate change, both noted above, in July 2022 MfE issued updated guidance relating to coastal hazards and climate change (which builds on previous guidance from 2017).

41 When exercising their functions under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and giving effect to the provisions of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS), councils should use a framework of five “medium confidence” climate change scenarios.

42 These five scenarios use shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs) introduced by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) published in 2021-23. These span a wide range of plausible societal and climatic futures and replace the previous representative concentration pathways (RCPs) used in the 2017 guidance. The scenarios include:

· SSP1-2.6 Median (Sustainability) - Aspirational pathway with extremely low emissions

· SSP2-4.5 Median (Middle of the road) - Most likely scenario, with emissions reductions consistent with historic social, economic and technological trends

· SSP3-7.0 Median (Regional rivalry) - Resurgent nationalism over regional and global issues

· SSP5-8.5 Median (Fossil fuel intensive development) – Ongoing emissions-intensive development

· SSP5-8.5 H+ (Upper likely range) - Worst case scenario.

43 MfE’s advice recommends using the five updated “medium confidence” scenarios out to 2150 to undertake risk and vulnerability assessments and stress-test proposals, strategies, project designs, policies, rules, statutory coastal hazard overlays, and emerging spatial plans.

44 It is also recommended to include vertical land movement (VLM) rates to calculate relative sea-level rise (RSLR) locally, or if rates are low, average them regionally. Where local VLM rates are specifically monitored and more granular, these should be used instead.

45 To further stress test risk-sensitive or long-lived projects such as new subdivisions, long-lived infrastructure, or vulnerable cultural sites, “low confidence” SSP scenarios could be used (which extend beyond 2150 and model some more uncertain contributors to sea-level rise, such as instabilities of polar ice shelves).

DISCUSSION

Approach to integrating climate change considerations in the 9 year plan

46 To respond to OAG expectations and guidance, and Taituara guidance, the following steps are being taken to integrate climate change considerations in the 9YP.

9 year plan element	Proposed approach
City Snapshot	Draft Dunedin emissions and climate change sections included in City Snapshot for Council consideration at a future Council meeting.
Forecasting assumptions	Draft climate-related significant forecasting assumptions set out for Council consideration in this report.
Financial and infrastructure strategies, policy reviews	Climate change and Zero Carbon sections of the financial and infrastructure strategies will be updated to reflect South Dunedin Future and Zero Carbon work programme progress and relevant Council decisions made since adoption of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan, including: - adoption of the South Dunedin Future work programme - adoption of the Zero Carbon Policy 2022 - adoption of the DCC’s Emissions Management and Reduction Plan 2023/24-2030/31 - progress against key projects that were identified in the 2021-31 10YP as being important contributors to climate change response - adoption of the Zero Carbon Plan 2030 - Council’s decisions on investment options for Zero Carbon Plan implementation.
Financial statements	These are prepared in line with accounting standards and legislative requirements. Relevant statements, risks, policies or other documents to be reviewed in line with the OAG’s guidance on “Accounting for climate change.”
Provision of information for decision-making	In line with the Zero Carbon Policy 2022, all proposed capital expenditure and all new proposed operating expenditure is being assessed for potential emissions impact. A Zero Carbon impact statement section will be added to Council report templates, to provide Councillors with information about the emissions impact of decisions. Guidance for staff has also been prepared.
Service and activity information and reporting	The Zero Carbon team has provided advice relating to ways climate-related goals and targets can be reflected in levels of service and associated performance measures.
Consultation document	Consideration will be given to how climate-related issues can be reflected in consultation documents, following relevant decisions of Council.

Climate-related Significant Forecasting Assumptions

This section sets out the proposed approach to the climate-related SFAs for the 9 year plan 2025-34.Significant Forecasting Assumptions

47 Schedule 10 (17) of the LGA provides the following:

A long-term plan must clearly identify—

(a) all the significant forecasting assumptions and risks underlying the financial estimates:

(a) without limiting the generality of paragraph (a), the following assumptions on which the financial estimates are based:

(i) the assumptions of the local authority concerning the life cycle of significant assets; and

(i) the assumptions of the local authority concerning sources of funds for the future replacement of significant assets:

(a) in any case where significant forecasting assumptions involve a high level of uncertainty,

(i) the fact of that uncertainty; and

(ii) an estimate of the potential effects of that uncertainty on the financial estimates provided.

48 The strategic significant forecasting assumptions (SFA’s) traditionally include the key assumptions around growth, climate change and economic projections.

Best practice guidance for climate-related SFAs

49 Best practice guidance directs that climate change assumptions must be realistic, evidence based, internally consistent with other assumptions and applied consistently across the organisation.

50 Climate change assumptions are likely to include the expected direct impact of climate change in the local area (e.g. sea-level rise, rainfall levels) and the impacts on communities from the expected effects of climate change (including broader impacts on the social, environmental, economic and cultural wellbeing of the local community), and how these might flow through to the local authority.

Draft SFAs for the 9 Year Plan 2025-34

51 Draft significant forecasting assumptions related to emissions reduction targets and climate change projections are at Attachment A, for Council approval. Growth assumptions and economic projections are presented in reports under separate cover.

52 The climate related SFAs have been updated since the previous LTP to reflect updated understanding and changes in our context:

· The City and DCC emissions reduction targets SFA has been updated since the last LTP to reflect work programme progress and additional DCC decisions relating to emissions reduction. In particular, since the last LTP, Council has adopted the Zero Carbon Plan (2023) and the Zero Carbon Policy (2022).

· The Climate Change Projections SFA is based on updated national guidance from the Ministry for the Environment (MfE), supporting research from the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), and information derived from Victoria University of Wellington’s NZ SeaRISE Programme. In the interests of simplicity, only two of the five scenarios are proposed to be included in the 9YP, SSP2-4.5 (Middle of the Road) and SSP5-8.5 (Fossil fuel intensive development).

Uncertainty around draft SFAs

53 The level of uncertainty associated with the assumptions are medium and high, due to the potential impact of Council decisions, and other entities’ decisions and actions on long-term outcomes (such as central government), and upcoming data releases.

54 The assumptions will be reviewed and further advice provided, following:

o Finalisation of the government’s second emissions reduction plan (due before the end of 2024)

o Council decisions on High / Medium Zero Carbon Investment packages

o Ministry for the Environment and NIWA release of data on climate change impacts.

OPTIONS

Option One – The draft climate-related SFAs are approved. Recommended Option.

55 Council approves the draft climate related SFAs for development of, and inclusion in, the draft 9 Year Plan 2025-34 (with or without amendment), noting that these will be reviewed, and further advice provided following decisions of Council and Government in late 2024.

Advantages

· The draft climate related SFAs will be used to further inform the development of the 9 year plan.

· Meets OAG guidelines for progressing climate actions as part of 9 year plan.

Disadvantages

· The climate related SFA may require revision, following additional information and decisions.

Option Two – The draft climate-related SFAs are not approved.

56 Council does not approve the draft climate related SFAs and requires further work be undertaken to amend as necessary.

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages.

Disadvantages

· Further work would be required to amend the climate related SFAs, which would put further pressure on meeting time frames for the development of the 9 Year Plan 2025-34.

NEXT STEPS

57 If approved, the draft climate-related SFAs will be included in, and used to support the development of the draft 9 Year Plan 2025-34.

58 As noted, the climate-related SFAs will be reviewed and updated following additional information and decisions. Any substantive changes will be presented to Council.

Signatories

Author:

Florence Reynolds - Zero Carbon Senior Policy Analyst, Sustainability

Jinty MacTavish - Principal Policy Advisor Sustainability

Jonathan Rowe - Programme Manager, South Dunedin Future

Authoriser:

Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Appendix A Climate-related SFAs for the 2025-34 9 Year Plan	183

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities, and promotes the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of the Dunedin communities, taking a sustainable development approach.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☒	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Spatial Plan	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☒	☐	☐

The 9 year plan contributes to all of the objectives and priorities of the strategic framework as it describes the Council’s activities, the community outcomes, and provides a long term focus for decision making and coordination of the Council’s resources, as well as a basis for community accountability.

Māori Impact Statement

The adoption of the Māori Strategic Framework signals Council’s commitment to mana whenua and to its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. Mana whenua and Māori will be involved in pre-engagement and have an opportunity to engage with the 9 year plan consultation process through a series of planned hui.

Sustainability

As part of the 9 year plan, several pieces of work are underway to give effect to Council’s commitment to sustainability, including the strategic refresh and the workplan set out in this paper.

Zero Carbon

This report sets out proposed Zero Carbon Significant Forecasting Assumptions for the 9 year plan, noting that these will be reviewed following finalisation of the government’s second emissions reduction plan and decisions of Council relating to Zero Carbon packages.

This report also sets out the proposed approach to integrating Zero Carbon considerations into the 9 year plan.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This report provides an update on the development of the 9 year plan. The 9 year plan project includes specific workstreams that will review Council’s financial and infrastructure strategies to ensure they are appropriate for the future.

Financial considerations

Financial considerations (including financial sustainability) will be key considerations in the development of the 9 year plan.

Significance

The 9 year plan will include community engagement and public consultation. Pre-engagement initiatives are being planned.

Engagement – external

The 9 year plan presents an opportunity for Council to engage fully with the community across a range of issues.

Engagement - internal

Staff from across council are involved in the development of the 9 year plan.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are legal, reputational, financial and strategic risk if the 9 year plan is not well executed, or the public do not trust that the Council is showing good governance, prudent strategic and operational leadership.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards will be engaged and consulted with as part of the 9 year plan.

Council

25 November 2024

DCC Appeal on the Otago Regional Council Representation Review

Department: Civic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks Council approval of a draft Dunedin City Council (DCC) appeal (Attachment A) on the Otago Regional Council (ORC) Representation Review (the Review). The ORC’s final proposal is at Attachment B. The ORC made no changes to its initial proposal.

2 Council now has the opportunity to appeal the decision of the ORC. Appeals are considered by the Local Government Commission. Appeals close on 3 December 2024. A draft appeal is attached.

3 The draft appeal addresses the same concerns Council raised in its submission to the ORC including the reduction in the Dunedin constituent councillor representation, and the community of interest for Mosgiel Taieri and Strath Taieri residents. The appeal also responds to the reasons expressed by the ORC for not agreeing to the concerns raised by the DCC.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Considers if wishes to appeal the Otago Regional Council’s Final Proposal on the Representation Review

If yes, then

b) Considers the draft DCC Appeal, with any amendments, on the Otago Regional Council’s Representation Review.

c) Authorises the Chief Executive to make any minor editorial changes to the appeal if required.

d) Authorises the Mayor or delegate to speak at any hearings in regard to the DCC appeal.

BACKGROUND

4 Under the Local Electoral Act 2001, each Council is required to undertake a Representation Review every six years. The ORC gave public notice of its initial proposal in July. Council submitted on the initial proposal in August. Council spoke to its submission on 3 October. The submission is attached.

5 On 23 October the ORC adopted its final proposal. It made no changes to the initial proposal. Public notice of the final proposal was given on 3 November. Appeals close on 3 December.

DISCUSSION

6 The key concerns the Council noted in its submission were the potential reduction in the Dunedin constituent councillor representation from six to five. The submission also argued that the Mosgiel Taieri and Strath Taieri areas be transferred from the Molyneux constituency to the Dunedin constituency. The Council argued that this would result in the whole of the Dunedin City area being represented in one ORC constituency, rather than being split across two constituencies as it currently is.

7 The Council acknowledged that while this transfer would support the retention of six councillors in the Dunedin constituency, the submission acknowledged that it would result in a reduction of councillor representation in the Molyneux constituency from two councillors to one.

8 The Council acknowledges that the population growth in the Central Otago and Queenstown Lakes areas of approximately 21,400 people since 2018 means that the Dunstan constituency needs to be addressed in the review. However, the number of Councillors for the Dunedin constituency should remain at six.

9 In its report on the final proposal, the ORC acknowledged there are communities of interest in common with Dunedin for Mosgiel Taieri. However, it argued that it also includes rural interests with sheep and beef farming and other rural activities which align Mosgiel with Balclutha. The Council does not accept that reason.

10 In addition, Council does not accept the argument from the ORC that separate flood and drainage assets create a community of interest for Mosgiel and Balclutha. There will be common issues across the whole of the ORC area, not simply between Dunedin and Molyneux. Further, DCC’s water infrastructure is also critical in responding to rainfall events that affect the Mosgiel Taieri area

11 The report also noted that “in the recent floods one of the comments that has been made was that the response communications were too focussed on Dunedin rather than the Taieri and Clutha areas. The Council rejects that comment and notes that the emergency response from Dunedin City was not only focussed on the areas of concern but also was in frequent contact with representatives from the Mosgiel Taieri and Strath Taieri communities.

12 To retain six councillors in the Dunedin constituency, the appeal proposes that the Mosgiel Taieri and Strath Taieri areas be transferred from the Molyneux constituency to the Dunedin constituency. This proposal is supported by the fact the community of interest for both is Dunedin, which provides core services to these areas, e.g., water services, roading infrastructure and recreational facilities. There are also strong employment and educational linkages with Dunedin.

13 Since the local government reorganisation in 1989, the Mosgiel Taieri and Strath Taieri areas have been part of the Dunedin City Council territorial authority. This position also supports the view that the community of interest for these areas is Dunedin. By transferring these from the Molyneux constituency to the Dunedin constituency, the boundaries for both the City Council area and the Regional Council constituency would be the same.

OPTIONS

14 There are two options.

Option One – Council appeals the ORC final proposal on its representation review

15 Under this option, Council approves the draft appeal, with any amendments, on the ORC representation review.

Advantages

· Enables the Council to advocate for transferring the Mosgiel Taieri and Strath Taieri areas from the Molyneux constituency to the Dunedin constituency of the ORC, being their community of interest.

· Enables Council to advocate for the whole of the Council area to be included in the Dunedin constituency of the ORC.

· Argues for the retention of the current number of councillors in the Dunedin constituency of the ORC.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages to this option.

Option Two – Status Quo – Not appeal the ORC final proposal on the representation review

16 Under this option, Council does not approve the draft appeal to ORC on the representation review.

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages for this option.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity to argue against a proposed reduction in the number of Councillor representatives for the Dunedin constituency, and the transfer of the Mosgiel Taieri and Strath Taieri areas of the Regional Council to Dunedin, being their community of interest.

NEXT STEPS

17 The ORC has an obligation to forward any appeals received to the Local Government Commission. The Local Government Commission will decide the next steps and make a binding determination by 11 April 2025.

Signatories

Author:	Clare Sullivan - Manager Governance
Authoriser:	Robert West - General Manager Corporate Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	DCC Appeal	206
⇩b	ORC Initial Proposal	210
⇩c	DCC Submision on Initial Proposal	216
⇩d	Public Notice of Final Proposal	220
⇩e	ORC report on Final Proposal	221
⇩f	DCC draft appeal on Final Proposal	227

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Future Development Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

The Representation Review is a statutory requirement

Māori Impact Statement

The impacts for Māori have not been considered as part of this process.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

No implications.

Financial considerations

The submission has no financial implications.

Significance

The decision is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement.

Engagement - internal

A workshop was held with elected members. Community boards were advised of the Representation Review and the opportunity to make a submission.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community boards were advised of the ORC’s representation review and invited to make submissions. Residents of the Strath Taieri and Mosgiel Taieri Community Boards areas are likely to be more affected.

Council

25 November 2024

Submission on Improving Efficiency in the Inspections Process

Department: Customer and Regulatory

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval of a draft Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) consultation on improving efficiency in the inspections process (the consultation). A draft cover letter for the submission is attached as Attachment A. The draft DCC submission, using MBIE’s template for this consultation, is attached as Attachment B. The consultation document is attached as Attachment C.

2 MBIE is seeking feedback on a range of options to increase the uptake of remote building inspections, with the aim of improving efficiency and productivity in the building inspection process.

3 MBIE is seeking feedback on the following options:

· Option One: Review remote inspection guidance, address failure rates and/or publish wait times (non-regulatory).

· Option Two: Require building consent authorities to have the systems and capability to conduct remote inspections.

· Option Three: Require building consent authorities to use remote inspections as the default approach to conducting inspections.

· Option Four: (complementary option): Create a new offence to deter deceptive behaviour.

4 The DCC submission speaks to each of the options, which it supports overall with the exception of the third option. The consultation also seeks feedback on increasing the use of Accredited Organisations (Building) to undertake inspections.

5 The consultation opened on 2 October 2024 and closes on 29 November 2024.

6 Taituarā is submitting on the consultation. The DCC’s draft submission aligns with its draft submission.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the draft Dunedin City Council submission, with any amendments, to the Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment on Improving Efficiency in the Inspections Process.

b) Authorises the Chief Executive to make any minor editorial amendments to the submission.

c) Notes that the Mayor or delegate would speak to any hearings in regard to the submission.

BACKGROUND

7 The DCC is the Building Consent Authority (BCA) for Dunedin City. Only registered BCAs are permitted to perform consenting and certifying functions in terms of the Building Act 2004.

8 Currently, less than 10% of the DCC’s building inspections are done remotely. Examples of remote inspections include buildings being built in other regions, such as relocatable houses which will be moved to Dunedin City. These inspections are undertaken via live video stream. In other cases, a remote inspection is undertaken when the work is almost completed and can be seen it to be of a high standard, a photograph may be deemed sufficient for final sign-off. This can also apply in the case of minor remedial work; for example, installation of a smoke alarm.

9 The DCC’s Building Inspectors are required to hold an appropriate Level 6 diploma qualification, which is a point of difference with most other tradespeople. The implications that implementing the proposals may have on the loss of expertise and a skilled workforce is addressed in the draft submission.

10 DCC Building Inspectors who have undertaken remote inspections using live video stream found the process difficult, time consuming, and had low confidence in the accuracy of the inspection.

11 Feedback from DCC Building Inspectors notes that while remote inspections provide savings in travel time, the actual inspections often taking longer than a face-to-face inspection.

12 The DCC has received feedback from some tradespeople that they prefer face-to-face inspections and do not want to participate in remote inspections. The DCC notes that more experienced tradespeople are less likely to be comfortable with the technology and communication modes involve in remote building inspections.

13 The DCC notes that a benefit of face-to-face inspections is the opportunity to provide education, support and information sharing with tradespeople and building owners.

Consultation context:

14 This consultation as part of wider package of Building and Construction sector reforms being undertaken by central government, some of which have also been opened for consultation.

15 The DCC submitted to MBIE on the “Making it Easier to Build Granny Flats” consultation in August 2024, and intends to submit again when the associated legislation is introduced. DCC staff are preparing a technical submission on the Building Code fire safety review, which is due to MBIE by 6 December 2024.

DISCUSSION

The Dunedin City Council Submission16 The DCC notes that Option One: Review remote inspection guidance, address failure rates and/or publish wait times, is a simple suggestion that provides benefits with little or no additional costs to BCAs.

17 In regard to Option Two, requiring building consent authorities to have the systems and capability to conduct remote inspections, the DCC takes the view that all BCAs should have systems and capacity to conduct remote inspections, and notes that many BCAs already do have these in place.

18 The DCC does not support Option Three, requiring building consent authorities to use remote inspections as the default approach to conducting inspections. Confirming that building work complies with the building code and building consent has a direct bearing on the satisfactory performance of buildings and the potential liability of BCAs. If remote inspections became the default, DCC would need to clarify what this would mean for its insurance cover profile given our perceived increased risk.

19 The DCC is concerned that Option Three opens the possibility that remote building inspections may be implemented in legislation as a default, as the DCC would not want to be obligated to do this.

20 The DCC believes that the BCA should be able to determine how best to manage inspections and the associated risks on behalf of ratepayers, given the current risk and liability on BCAs and local authorities. As the BCA for Dunedin City, it is the DCC’s role to manage risk and this option does not allow for any discretion or autonomy.

21 The DCC agrees with the proposal in Option Four, creating a new offence to deter deceptive behaviour during a remote inspection and give building consent authorities more confidence to inspect remotely. However, the proposed offence would require proof of deceptive intent and does not address merely poorly executed works carried out honestly. The submission also acknowledges the difficulty in proving an offence has occurred when building work is often built-in or covered up. The DCC also notes that there may be limited council uptake due to the time and resources required to investigate and prosecute this type of offence.

22 In regard to Option Four, the DCC submission re-emphasises that BCAs should be able to determine how best to manage inspections and the associated risks on behalf of ratepayers given the current risk and liability on BCAs and local authorities; hence, its preference for face-to face inspections.

23 The DCC proposes an additional option that the requirement to undertake inspections with a maximum timeframe be incorporated into the Building Act 2004, similar to how it includes a 20-day time limit on granting Building Consents.

24 The DCC submission includes suggestions for inspections which may be suited to being conducted remotely, such as installing insulation, site location, and block work.

25 The DCC’s position is that a number of inspections should never be undertaken remotely, including: ground bearing capacity; cladding; pile foundation; framing preline; completion inspections for complex projects; and inspections for certificates for public use and acceptance.

Increasing the Use of Accredited Organisations (Building) to Undertake Inspections

26 The DCC’s position, as detailed in the draft submission, is that it would support contracting Accredited Organisations (Building) to undertake inspections if liability is removed for councils, and the organisations are able to get insurance cover. Historically this has been one of the factors that caused private building control authorities to cease trading.

27 The DCC submission notes it has contracted services in the past and found that the arrangement generated nearly as much work as it saved. There are also considerable costs when contracting private profit-making entities.

28 The DCC submission identifies the following risks with contracting Accredited Organisations (Building) to undertake inspections:

· loss of the skilled DCC workforce

· less control over quality and consistency of inspections undertaken

· difficulty resolving issues when the DCC and or accredited organisations disagree with each other’s process or inspection findings

· possible reputational risk to DCC due to negligence by the other party.

29 The DCC submission notes that the average industry skill level of Licensed Building Practitioners and Authorised Plumbers contributes to high inspection failure rates experienced by most BCAs. Therefore, at minimum, DCC seeks a requirement for a continuing competency assessment regime similar to the assessment process that is already in place for BCA staff.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option

30 Approve the DCC submission to MBIE on the Improving efficiency in the inspections process consultation.

Advantages

· Opportunity for the DCC to advocate in its role as the Building Consent Authority for Dunedin City.

· Opportunity for the DCC to express its views about proposals that impact on the building and construction system in Ōtepoti Dunedin.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages.

Option Two – Status Quo

31 Do not approve the DCC submission to MBIE on the Improving efficiency in the inspections process consultation.

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity for the DCC to advocate in its role as the Building Consent Authority for Dunedin City.

· Missed opportunity for the DCC to express its views about proposals that impact on the building and construction system in Ōtepoti Dunedin.

NEXT STEPS

32 If the submission is approved staff will submit it, with any amendments, to the Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment by 29 November 2024.

Signatories

Author:	Neil McLeod - Principal Advisor – Building Services
Authoriser:	Paul Henderson - General Manager Customer and Regulatory (Acting)

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Cover letter DCC submission on Improving efficiency in the inspections process	252
⇩b	Draft DCC submission on Improving efficiency in the inspection process	255
⇩c	Consultation document for Improving efficiency in the inspections process	273

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the social, economic, and environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	✔
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Future Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	☐

There is a strategic fit with the Zero Carbon Policy, and Te Taki Haruru – Māori Strategic Framework.

Māori Impact Statement

Te Taki Haruru, the DCC’s Māori Strategic Framework, includes the principle of Autaketake and the values of tapu and noa, which provide an element of safety over an activity or resource.

Sustainability

Proposals in the consultation have potential implications for sustainability, and the DCC’s commitment to its Zero Carbon Policy.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for current levels of service and/or performance measures.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications

Significance

This decision is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

Engagement - internal

This submission has been prepared by staff from the Building Services team, including Senior Building Inspectors, and the Legal and Corporate Policy teams.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Confirming that building work complies with the Building Code and building consent has a direct bearing on the satisfactory performance of buildings and the potential liability of BCAs. If remote inspections became the default, DCC would need to clarify what this would mean for its insurance cover profile given our perceived increased risk.

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Community Boards

Council

25 November 2024

Proposed Event Road Closures

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The DCC has received temporary road closure applications relating to the following events:

a) Graduation Parades

b) Community Christmas Event – Lanark Street Cul-de-sac

c) Filming

d) Veteran Car Run

e) Waitangi Day Celebrations

f) Weet-Bix Kids TRYathlon

2 This report recommends that Council approves the temporary closure of the affected roads.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Resolves to close the roads detailed below (pursuant to Section 319, Section 342, and Schedule 10 clause 11(e) of the Local Government Act 1974 (LGA 1974)):

i) Graduation Parades

Note: Graduation times are the same time for each day specified below.

Saturday, 7 December 2024

AND

Wednesday, 11 December 2024

AND

Saturday, 14 December 2024

11.00am to 11.30am

· Great King Street, between Frederick Street and Albany Street (parade starts at 11:30 from Great King Street)

11.10am to 12.15pm (approx.)

· Frederick Street, between Great King Street and George Street

· George Street, between Frederick Street and Moray Place

11.10am to 12.30pm

· Moray Place, between George Street and Upper Stuart Street

· Filleul Street, between Moray Place and St Andrew Street

ii) Community Christmas Event – Lanark Street Cul-de-sac

Note: Contingency date is 15 December 2024.

8 December 2024

1.00pm to 9.00pm

· Lanark Street cul-de-sac, from Irvine Street to end

iii) Filming

Note: Only one of the days below will be closed for this activity.

ONE of the following dates:

Sunday, 12 January 2025

Sunday, 19 January 2025

Sunday, 26 January 2025

Sunday, 2 February 2025

1.00am to 6.00am

· Princes Street, between Jetty Street and Rattray Street

· Liverpool Street, between Princes Street and Bond Street

· Water Street, between Princes Street and Bond Street

· Rattray Street and Queens Gardens, between Princes Street and Crawford Street

· Dowling Street, between Princes Street and SH1

· Burlington Street, between Moray Place and SH1

· Bond Street, between Rattray Street and Water Street

· Vogel Street, between Queens Gardens and Water Street

· Stuart Street, between SH1 Cumberland Street and SH1 Castle Street

iv) Veteran Car Run

Saturday, 25 January 2025

9.00am to 12.00pm

· The Octagon Central Carriageway

v) Waitangi Day Celebrations

Thursday, 6 February 2025

9.00am to 4.00pm

· The Octagon Central Carriageway, between Princes Street and George Street

i) Weet-Bix Kids TRYathlon

Lane (half road) closures will be in place on the following roads in Mosgiel for the cycle course part of the above event:

Sunday, 2 March 2025

6.30am to 1.30pm

· Factory Road, from High Street to Church Street

· High Street, from Factory Road to Green Street

· Green Street, from Church Street to High Street

· Church Street, from Factory Street to Green Street

BACKGROUND

3 Council’s Dunedin Festival and Events Plan supports the goal of a successful city with a diverse, innovative, and productive economy and a hub for skill and talent.

4 The areas proposed to be used for these events are legal roads and can therefore be temporarily closed to normal traffic if statutory temporary road closure procedures are followed. The procedures are set out in Section 319 of the LGA 1974 and give Council the power to stop or close any road (or part of a road) within the parameters of Section 342 and Schedule 10 of the LGA 1974 (Schedule 10 is included as Attachment A).

5 These procedures include:

· Consultation with the New Zealand Transport Authority Waka Kotahi and the Police.

· Public notice being given of the proposal to close any road (or part of a road), and public notice of a decision to close the road.

· Council being satisfied that traffic is not likely to be unreasonably impeded.

6 A resolution of Council is required where a proposal to temporarily close a road relates to public functions.

7 Council is required to give public notice of its decision. This notice will be published after this meeting and prior to the event, if approved.

DISCUSSION

Consultation and Notification

8 The Police and the New Zealand Transport Authority Waka Kotahi have no objections to the proposed road closures.

9 On Saturday, 19 October 2024 and Wednesday, 20 November 2024, the proposed temporary road closures were advertised in the Otago Daily Times (Attachments B and C) with a deadline for feedback.

10 The event organisers contacted those considered affected prior to submitting their application, and no objections were received.

11 Schedule 10 clause 11(e) states a road cannot be closed more than 31 days in the aggregate in any one year. This limit will not be exceeded by the approval of the proposed temporary road closures.

Traffic Impacts

12 The event locations of these events have had identical road closures for the same, or similar event(s) in prior years without causing unreasonable delays to the travelling public.

13 Emergency services and public transport services will be managed through the temporary traffic management process.

14 The Temporary Traffic Management Plan process ensures that other issues such as temporary relocation of certain parking (e.g. taxi, mobility and Authorised Vehicles Only) are managed.

OPTIONS

15 Note any amendment to this report’s recommendations cannot be implemented without further consultation with the affected parties, New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi, the Police, and verifying that traffic impacts are acceptable.

Option One – Recommended Option

16 That the Council closes the sections of road as recommended in this report.

Advantages

· Roads can be closed, and the event will be able to proceed.

· The closures will assist in realising the economic, social, and cultural benefits associated with the events.

Disadvantages

· There will be temporary loss of vehicular access through the closed areas. However, there are detours available, and safety can be assured using temporary traffic management.

Option Two – Status Quo

17 That the Council decides not to close the roads in question.

Advantages

· There would be no detour required for the travelling public, and the roads would be able to be used as normal.

Disadvantages

· The events would not be able to go ahead, and the benefits of the events would be lost.

NEXT STEPS

18 Should the resolution be made to temporarily close the roads, Council staff will accept the temporary traffic management plans that have been received for the events and notify the public of the closures.

Signatories

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 10	304
⇩b	ODT Advert - 19 October 2024	309
⇩c	ODT Advert - 20 November 2024	310

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the social well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Arts and Culture Strategy	✔	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Future Development Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

Events contribute to the Strategic Framework. Events contribute to the Economic Development Strategy, the Social Wellbeing Strategy. There is a Festival and Events Plan 2018-2023.

Māori Impact Statement

Mana whenua have not been directly engaged with in relation to these road closures.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications, as the decision is a regulatory one and there are no direct costs to Council.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications. The cost of the proposed road closure is not a cost to Council.

Significance

This decision is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been external engagement (as required by the LGA 1974), with the Police and New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi. Affected parties were notified and provided a time period for feedback.

Engagement - internal

There has been engagement with DCC Events and Transport. There is support for the events to proceed.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks should the recommended resolution be made.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Council

25 November 2024

Local Water Done Well - Decision on Model Shortlist for Water Services Delivery Plan

Department: Legal Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Council is required to submit a Water Services Delivery Plan (WSDP) to the Secretary for Local Government by 3 September 2025.

2 A key content requirement of the WSDP is “the anticipated or proposed model or arrangements for delivering water services (including whether the territorial authority is likely to enter into a joint arrangement)” (Model). An implementation plan for delivering the Model must also be included in the WSDP.

3 Timeframes are constrained in delivering the WSDP as shown in the timeline prepared by staff (Attachment A) (Timeline).

4 Legislation requires Council to consider specific options when deciding on the Model. This includes existing delivery and a water services council-controlled organisation (WSCCO). However, Council is also able to identify other additional options.

5 The purpose of this Report is to:

a) Update Council on the Timeline and process involved in preparing the WSDP, particularly relating to the Model.

b) Provide Council with a long list of possible Model options and external analysis received on the long list to date.

c) Recommend to Council they decide on a short list of options for the Model (Short List) and direct staff to arrange further detailed analysis on the options under the Short List.

d) Recommend to Council that the Short List includes three base models (in-house delivery, single CCO and regional multi-council CCO) and any optional add-on(s) subject to further analysis.

e) Signal that there will be a subsequent report in early 2025 asking Council to make a “decision in principle” on the Model, subject to public consultation.

f) Update Council on further engagement with other territorial authorities and Mana Whenua.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Decides to shortlist three base models (in-house delivery, single CCO and regional multi-council CCO) and any optional add-on(s) subject to further analysis.

b) Directs staff to arrange further analysis on the shortlisted options selected.

c) Directs staff to report back to Council in early 2025 to enable a decision in principle on the Model proposal and alternative model(s) that Council will consult on.

BACKGROUND

Local Water Done Well

6 The Government continues to progress the three-stage process to enabling the Local Water Done Well reform programme (LWDW).

7 The first stage of LWDW saw the repeal of legislation relating to water services entities in February 2024.

8 The second stage of LWDW was implemented with the passing of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024 (Preliminary Act) on 2 September 2024. As a result of the Preliminary Act, Council is now required to prepare and submit a WSDP to the Secretary for Local Government by 3 September 2025.

9 The third stage of LWDW is expected to be the introduction of the Local Government Water Services Bill (December Bill) in December 2024 with possible enactment in mid-2025. The December Bill is intended to provide the enduring settings going forward for LWDW including the framework for economic regulation as well as the more detailed powers and duties for service delivery models.

10 Guidance on the future water services delivery system was released by the DIA on 8 August 2024. This was based on the LWDW Cabinet decisions announced by the Minister of Local Government in August 2024. Further guidance was also released by the DIA on 3 September 2024, specifically in relation to WSDPs and provides a template for Council to develop the WSDP content. Some of the key factsheets and summaries have been attached at Attachment B and further detail is available on the DIA website at https://www.dia.govt.nz/Water-Services-Policy-and-Legislation (Guidance).

11 However, it is important to note that the Guidance will be subject to amendment as the December Bill proceeds through the parliamentary process. The December Bill may not be enacted until mid-2025 yet Council is required to proceed with decisions to enable delivery of the WSDP by 3 September 2025.

Water Service Delivery Plan

12 Preparing the WSDP requires technical and rigorous analysis. This will involve significant work by staff.

13 The WSDP requires information on the Model including:

a) the anticipated or proposed model or arrangements for delivering water services (including whether Council is likely to enter a joint arrangement or will continue to deliver water services alone);

b) summary of consultation undertaken as part of developing the Model in the WSDP; and

c) an implementation plan for delivering the Model (Guidance indicates that the implementation plan requires information on process, commitment, timeframes, and milestones).

14 Note if Council decided to enter a joint arrangement with another territorial authority they could choose to prepare and submit a joint WSDP.

15 Council is required by law to give effect to the proposals or undertakings relating to the future delivery of water services specified in the WSDP. Not doing so could be a ground for appointing a Crown facilitator.

16 There is an opportunity to amend a WSDP within a specified timeframe if the proposed amendments are significant and necessary due to exceptional circumstances.

17 A staff LWDW Working Group has been established to coordinate the delivery of the WSDP.

18 To continue preparing the WSDP, staff seek direction from Council on a Short List of potential Models. Staff will undertake detailed analysis of the shortlisted Models and will report back to Council early next year so that Council can select which Models it wants to consult on and which Model “in principle” is its preferred Model (subject to consultation).

Decision Making and Consultation on the Model

19 The Preliminary Act presents an alternative process that Council must use for decision making and consultation on the Model.

20 Council is not required to comply with the corresponding requirement in the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002) where an alternative process under the Preliminary Act applies.

Decision Making

21 The Preliminary Act requires decision making relating to the Model to identify both of the following two options for delivering water services:

a) Remaining with the existing approach for delivering water services; and

b) Establishing, joining, or amending (as the case may be) the WSCCO or the joint local government arrangement.

Note: For the purposes of this Report the above two options are called the “Legally Required Options”.

22 Council may also identify additional options for delivering water services and must assess the advantages and disadvantages of all options identified.

Consultation

23 Council is only required to consult once but may decide to undertake further consultation before deciding on a Model.

24 Given Council did not adopt an LTP in 2024, the Preliminary Act provides that Council can combine consultation on both the LTP 2025-2034, and the Model.

25 As noted in the ISCOM Report on 17 September 2024, there is merit in combining the timing of the LTP consultation with the timing of the consultation on the WSDP. The mechanics of whether the consultation documents should be combined as one consultation document or two will be assessed in the report to Council early next year.

Information Requirements for Consultation

26 During consultation, Council must make the following information publicly available:

The proposal, an explanation of the proposal and the reasons for the proposal.

An analysis of the reasonably practicable options (including the proposal) which must be the two options referred to above under decision making.

How proceeding (or not) with the proposal is likely to affect DCC’s rates, debt, levels of service and water services charges.

Community implications (if joint) and accountability/monitoring arrangements (if assets transferred).

Any other relevant implications of the proposal that the authority considers will be of interest to the public.

27 If a council is required to amend its LTP to give effect to a Model, a council is not required to consult on the proposal if it:

a) has already consulted its community in relation to the proposal;

b) is satisfied that its community has a good understanding of the implications of the proposal; and

c) is satisfied that it understands its community’s views on the proposal.

28 Council is required to consult with Mana Whenua under both section 77(1)(c) and section 81 of the LGA 2002 given both references are included under section 60 of the Preliminary Act. Further, section 14(1)(d) of the LGA 2002 also provides that a local authority should provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to its decision-making processes.

Timeline and Process

29 Council’s current Timeline for adopting the WSDP, including process for making a decision on the Model is provided at Attachment A. The Timeline is subject to amendment as required by further Government direction or legislation.

30 DIA’s implementation roadmap for LWDW (including for Council Water Service Delivery Arrangements) is shown at Attachment C.

31 To date, staff have presented on the WSDP (including on possible Model options) as below:

· ISCOM on 17 September 2024 (outlining the WSDP requirements and process) (ISCOM Report).

· Council Workshop on 3 October 2024 (Possible Models/Arrangements).

· Council Workshop on 23 October 2024 (LWDW Review).

32 This Report is limited to providing information on the Long List of possible Model options to aid a decision on a Short List. This Report does not discuss other content required under the WSDP or future water delivery settings except where discussed as part of the analysis on possible Model options.

33 For further detail on other content requirements under the WSDP, refer to both the ISCOM Report dated 17 September 2024 and Guidance.

34 For further information as to what is likely expected in the December Bill refer also to the DIA website. Staff anticipate that there will be an opportunity to submit on the future settings once the December Bill has been introduced.

Engagement with other Territorial Authorities

35 As discussed in the ISCOM Report, an Otago/Southland LWDW Working Group (Regional Working Group) was formed in April 2024. The Regional Working Group was overseen by the Chief Executive Officers of each council and reported to the Otago/Southland Mayoral Forum.

36 The Regional Working Group has now substantially completed its scope of work to investigate:

· Regional collaboration opportunities.

· Regional delivery models.

· National collaboration opportunities.

37 Morrison Low was appointed by the Regional Working Group to assess regional delivery models suitable for the Otago and Southland regions. The assessment followed The Treasury – Te Tai Ōhanga Better Business Case methodology to ascertain investment objectives and critical success factors which were used to refine to a short list of regional delivery model options and assess their relative merits and drawbacks.

38 The Regional Working Group’s regional delivery model findings were presented to the Local Government Zone 6 Council on 1 November 2024. The Regional Working Group shortlisted options and findings are discussed further below in this Report.

39 Otago councils are currently in the process of considering options for WSDPs. At the time of writing none have made a decision about their preferred option. All councils will be considering papers between now and the first week in December 2024. Staff understand that a combined CCO is an option that is favoured by some of the councils while others are looking at options where they continue to deliver water services in their own right. Staff are in contact with their counterparts at the other authorities and will update Councillors once the preferences of other territorial authorities are known.

Engagement with Mana Whenua

40 Engagement with Mana Whenua on the Model to date has been focused through the Regional Working Group and ISCOM activities and includes:

41 It is anticipated that further engagement with Te Pae Māori will be undertaken in December 2024.

DISCUSSION

Model Options – Introduction

42 It is expected that the December Bill will enable the establishment of new financially separate water organisations. The Guidance states further that “Councils will be able to continue to be able to deliver water services directly (such as through inhouse business units), however they will also be able to establish new water organisations that are more financially and operationally independent of councils”.

43 The Guidance further states councils will be able to design their own alternative delivery arrangements if these arrangements meet the minimum requirements set out in the legislation.

44 Possible Model options (already presented to Council in Workshops) include those models described in:

a) DIA Guidance — model options anticipated to be introduced to law in the December Bill (refer Attachment D) (DIA Models);

b) Morrison Low Report dated 24 October 2024 as commissioned by the Regional Working Group (refer Attachment E) (Regional Options); and

c) Simpson Grierson analysis dated 11 July 2024 – outlining other possible options (refer Attachment F).

45 The Model options presented within the above documents are together referred to in this Report as the “Long List”. However, note that the Long List may also include any other option that Council adopts if it meets minimum requirements and is otherwise legally compliant.

46 Given the constraints in the Timeline and resource required to provide further detailed analysis, staff now recommend that Council analyse the Long List and decide on a Short List. Further initial information on the Long List is provided below.

47 In analysing the Long List, Council must consider the implications of the:

a) minimum requirements (likely introduced in the December Bill); and

b) Legally Required Options (but Council may also identify additional options).

48 Given the Legally Required Options, staff provide some initial comparative analysis on three base models (in-house delivery, single CCO and multi-council CCO). Despite the further comparison of these three base models, all options are available for Council to consider. Council may request further analysis from staff on any other option.

Minimum Requirements – Summary

49 Guidance indicates that the December Bill will establish a framework that requires minimum requirements are met by all water service providers (including in-house delivery). Additional requirements for those forming water organisations and consumer-trust models are also likely to apply.

50 While still subject to amendment during the legislative process, staff would not expect major amendment to the underlying principles of the minimum requirements given the detailed Guidance to date and the expected reliance by all territorial authority processes to date.

Water Service Provider

51 A water service “provider” means all forms of local government providers including councils that continue with direct (in-house) delivery. Irrespective of what Model is chosen by Council these minimum requirements need to be met and significant change would be required even to an in-house model. Therefore, this Report refers to this option as “in-house” delivery rather than “status quo”.

52 Further detail on each of the minimum requirements for all water services providers is given below but an initial summary is shown in the below table (copied from the Guidance):

Water Organisation

53 The term “water organisation” refers to a separate organisation that Council may establish to provide water services and does not include in-house delivery.

54 Additional legislative requirements are likely to apply if forming a “water organisation”. Guidance suggests these could affect the organisation’s ownership, governance and structural arrangements and include:

55 Further requirements will also likely apply if a consumer trust-owned water organisation is adopted. Refer to page 6 of the Guidance at Attachment B.

56 The Guidance indicates that an exemption may be able to be applied for on a case-by-case basis through an Order in Council from the following requirements:

· Water organisations must be companies;

· Activities to be limited to the provision of water services and directly related activities; and

· Only councils or consumer trusts can be shareholders of a water organisation (however, still ensuring no form of privatisation is permitted).

Minimum Requirements – Further Detail

Regulation

57 Guidance indicates that the December Bill will include regulatory settings to ensure water service providers will be subject to economic, environmental and water quality regulation including the following:

Economic regulation and consumer protection

1 Economic regulation tools available to the Commerce Commission include:

· Information disclosure, revenue thresholds, financial ringfencing, quality standards and performance requirements, price-quality regulation.

2 Consumer protection tools available to the Commerce Commission include:

· Complaints regulations, dispute resolution regulations, guidelines on service quality codes; and a mandatory service quality code.

3 Economic regulation regime will be risk-based and flexible. Based on information supplied in WSDP and information disclosure requirements, the regulator will be able to set individual requirements for certain providers and common regulations where appropriate.

4 Economic regulation will apply to drinking water and wastewater services and will provide flexibility to include stormwater services at a later date if necessary.

5 Cost of the regulator due to providing economic regulation of water services, will be funded through a levy on local water services providers.

DIA Guidance Factsheet Link Economic regulation and consumer protection

Drinking water regulation

1 Changes aim to reduce the cost and burden for drinking water suppliers associated with complying with the Water Services Act 2021. Changes are designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the drinking water regulatory regime and the approach Taumata Arowai takes to regulating.

2 Propose to reduce regulatory burden on small suppliers, by excluding ‘shared domestic supplies’ serving 25 consumers or fewer from regulation. Higher risk community supplies (such as community halls and marae) would not be covered by this exclusion.

3 Amend legislation to refer to ‘Water Services Authority – Taumata Arowai’.

4 Changes to provide clarity around how to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai.

DIA Guidance Factsheet Link Drinking water quality regulation

58 Likely timing of the new regulatory settings are set out in the DIA Implementation Roadmap for LWDW including environmental regulation for wastewater, stormwater and infrastructure (refer Attachment C).

Planning and Accountability Framework

59 The Guidance indicates the following three core documents will make up the new planning and accountability framework:

60 In addition, water service providers will be required to develop standalone financial statements for all water services (drinking water, wastewater, stormwater, and aggregated water services). These statements will separate water services charges, expenses and liabilities from other council activities.

61 Councils that continue to deliver water services in-house will prepare a water services strategy and associated annual report instead of including extensive information on water services in their general LTP, infrastructure strategy, financial strategy and annual report.

62 For more detailed information refer to the DIA Guidance Factsheet (Planning and accountability for local government water services) (refer Attachment B).

Financially Sustainable

63 A WSDP needs an explanation of how revenue from and delivery of water services will be separated from other functions and activities. Further, an explanation of how Council proposes to ensure delivery of water services will be financially sustainable by 30 June 2028.

64 The Guidance states that ringfencing requires that:

a) Water revenues be spent on water services; and

b) Water services charges and expenses be transparent and accountable.

65 The Preliminary Act defines ‘financially sustainable’, in relation to a council’s delivery of water services, as:

a) The revenue applied to the council’s delivery of those water services is sufficient to ensure the council’s long-term investment in delivering water services; and

b) The council is financially able to meet all regulatory standards and requirements for the council’s delivery of those water services.

66 The Guidance suggests three components to assessing financial sustainability:

a) Revenue sufficiency – is there sufficient revenue to cover the costs (including servicing debt) of water services delivery?

b) Investment sufficiency – is the projected level of investment sufficient to meet regulatory requirements and provide for growth?

c) Financing sufficiency – are funding and finance arrangements sufficient to meet investment requirements?

67 The Guidance makes further recommendations about how councils can demonstrate ringfencing. It also provides further information about financial sustainability as well as providing a template for financial projections and a financial sustainability test (See DIA link Guidance for preparing Water Services Delivery Plans).

Requirement to act consistently with Statutory Objectives

68 It is expected that the December Bill will set out a list of statutory objectives that will apply to all water service providers.

69 Guidance also suggests there will be additional statutory objectives that apply to water organisations, such as those listed above under minimum requirements for water organisations.

70 Further analysis of the statutory objectives will be required by staff when the December Bill is introduced.

Protections against Privatisation

71 Guidance states that the December Bill will likely include the following statutory protections:

· Only local authorities and/or consumer trusts will be permitted to own shares in a water organisation.

· Provisions that prevent:

i) water infrastructure assets from being used as security for any purpose;

ii) divestment of ownership or other interest in a water service except to another local government organisation or water organisation; and

iii) loss of control of, sale, or other form of disposal of the significant infrastructure necessary for providing water services in its region or district, unless, in doing so, the local authority or water organisation retains its capacity to meet its obligations.

· Shares in water organisations cannot give any right, title or interest in the assets, security, debts, or liabilities of the entity, and would not be able to be sold or transferred.

· Water organisations that involve consumer trusts will require additional provisions to ensure ownership interests cannot be transferred.

Long List – Model Options

DIA Models

72 The DIA Models outlined in the Guidance (and as described to Council in the ISCOM Report) are shown in the table below:

73 An overview of the DIA models is provided below, and more information can be found in the Guidance (refer Attachment B). Further comparative analysis including some advantages and disadvantages (as provided and inferred from external analysis) on the first three of these models is also shown later in this Report:

Otago Southland Regional Working Group

74 As referred to above, the Regional Working Group commissioned a report by Morrison Low to develop a first principles approach to identify the range of pathways and the short list of options for service delivery in the two regions.

75 Five strategic objectives were developed by the Regional Working Group and overseen by Chief Executives and endorsed by Mayors across the regions. The endorsed objectives were:

a) To deliver three waters services in a way that reflects the importance of water to the health of our residents, visitors, environment and economy.

b) To deliver three waters services that sustainably respond to change in population, economic activity and climate change.

c) To deliver three waters services through a model that is responsive to the local needs of our communities.

d) To provide efficient and effective services through a model that supports robust decision making and the development of enduring capability and capacity.

e) To ensure that three waters are delivered through a model that is enduring and financially sustainable.

76 The Regional Options that were assessed in the Morrison Low Report against the strategic objectives were:

a) Status Quo: Councils continue with existing delivery models.

b) Joint Contracts: Councils enter joint contracts for core services such as engineering services, asset management services or laboratories.

c) Shared Services Entity: Establishing a formal entity for shared services, including those that could be included in joint contracts. The entity may employ its own staff and would likely include a broader suite of shared services than a joint contracts model.

d) Management CCO: A CCO responsible for most elements of water services delivery. Each council would continue to set its own charges, manage its own debt, and agree a three waters budget.

e) Multi-Council Water Services Entity (Otago Southland WSE): A single entity responsible for all elements of water services delivery. Councils would not own assets, set charges or manage their own debt. Arrangements could be agreed around the approach to harmonising prices or ringfencing some debt.

77 The Morrison Low Report also states that the Regional Working Group considered many other options within their wider analysis including a joint committee, community owned cooperative/trust, delivery through a regional council, memorandum of understanding, shared arrangement, joint venture, multiple CCOs or entities and a consumer trust. These options did not make the Regional Working Group’s short list based on a review of compliance against the agreed strategic objectives.

78 In essence, Morrison Low considered that:

a) There is a compelling case for changing the water services delivery model in Otago and Southland; and

b) There are clear benefits for the Otago and Southland Regions to establish an Otago Southland Water Services Entity.

79 Full analysis of the Regional Options are provided in the Morrison Low Report (Attachment E).

Other Possible Model Options

80 As shown in the Simpson Grierson Advice dated 11 July 2024 (Attachment F), other Model options could include:

a) Management CCO – separate CCO company to manage and deliver water services with ownership of the water assets remaining with the Council (refer page 15 of Attachment F).

b) Non-Charitable Trust – independent legal entity established through a trust deed with the power to own, hold and operate the water services assets (refer page 18 of Attachment F).

c) Joint Committee – committee between participating councils to own, operate and manage the water assets and services subject to the LGA 2002 framework, without separate legal status (refer page 20 of Attachment F).

d) Charitable Trust (Non-CCO) – independent legal entity established through a trust deed with the power to own, hold and operate the relevant assets (refer page 22 of Attachment F).

e) Council-owned company (COC) – legally separate council owned company to perform full breadth of water services, including ownership of all water assets, revenues and liabilities. Not controlled by Council (refer page 24 of Attachment F).

f) Limited Partnership – established to perform full breadth of water services, to be managed by a company appointed a general partner (refer page 26 of Attachment F).

g) Statutory Body – Parliament passes legislation which establishes the water entity and sets out its scope and objectives, governance framework and decision-making principles (refer page 28 of Attachment F).

81 Further detail on each of these models (as well as other Models under the Long List) is available at Attachment F.

82 Note that the Guidance was not available as at the date of the Simpson Grierson advice so some of the questions still posed in the advice by Simpson Grierson may now have some further direction. For example, the Guidance now discusses possible exemption of most new water organisations to income tax given they are not primarily engaged in commercial activities with a profit-making objective and will be owned by councils and consumer trusts. If required, further consideration of tax implications on any Short List can be arranged by staff.

83 Simpson Grierson also considered other models such as a non-CCTO Charitable Trust, a Port Company/Energy Company Model and an Incorporated Society however dismissed these as viable options so didn’t include these in their analysis.

Base Models and Add Ons

84 In analysing the Long List, staff recommend that Council classify some of the options as base models and some as add-on(s) (that could be added to a base model) as shown in the table below. This may simplify the decision to adopt a Short List.

85 It could be that Council shortlist some base models in addition to identifying add-on(s) that they may be interested in pursuing further subject to further analysis. The options presented by staff in this Report are presented on this basis.

86 Staff understand from the DIA that an “add-on” could be described in a Council’s Implementation Plan as an option that is still being pursued. However, it is important to note that the base model needs to show financial sustainability within the legislated timeframe in any event.

*BASE MODELS*	+ (optional)	*ADD-ON(S)*
In-House Delivery		Management Contract (several variations including those as described below)
Single CCO
Multi-Council CCO (regional or other)		Management CCO (regional)
Mixed council/consumer trust owned		Joint Contracts
Consumer Trust Owned		Shared Services
Charitable/Non-Charitable Trust		Joint Committee
Council-Owned Company
Limited Partnership
Statutory Body

87 There are several variations on the management contract “add-on” option that could be analysed further. Some of these are included in the diagram below including management contracts between:

a) DCC and another entity e.g., an existing DCC entity (this management contract would effectively be an “add-on” to the in-house delivery base model). This could realise efficiencies by utilising existing skill sets but may not allow access to increased leverage.

b) DCC and a new asset owning DCC CCO (this management contract would effectively be an “add-on” to the WSCCO base model). This is expected to allow the access to increased LGFA leverage.

c) New asset owning DCC CCO and another entity e.g., existing DCC CCO (this management contract would effectively be an “add-on” to the WSCCO base model) – This is expected to allow access to increased LGFA leverage.

Comparative Analysis of Possible Base Models

88 As mentioned above, Council is required to include the Legally Required Options as part of its consultation document. Given this requirement, staff have provided below a summary of the key elements (including some advantages and disadvantages provided and inferred by external analysis) on both the in-house delivery model and single CCO models.

89 Further comparison has also been provided on the regional multi-council base model given this model can also satisfy the WSCCO requirement by law and additionally, is the key recommendation from the Morrison Low Report (discussed further below). While further information is provided on the regional multi-council base model the decision to proceed further with this option is subject to regional participating councils resolving to proceed to go ahead.

90 Staff have not provided further analysis on the remaining two DIA Models involving consumer trusts. However, further detail on these is provided in the Guidance (refer Attachment B). Some advantages of the consumer trust model are competency-based boards comprising professional directors and a single focus on setting the direction and delivery of water services. Some disadvantages include possible complications setting statements of expectations (for a mixed council consumer trust model) or possibly no direct influence on setting statements of expectation (where issued by a consumer trust).

91 As mentioned above, in any event, Council still has all options (base models and add-on(s)) available to direct staff to arrange further analysis.

In-House/Internal Business Unit

Ownership	· Part of Council. · No new organisation established.
Governance	Responsible to Council through mechanisms under LGA 2002
Strategic Direction	Council prepares a Water Services Strategy
Accountability	· Act consistently with statutory objectives. · Water business unit reports to Council. · Council prepares separate annual reporting and audited financial statements. · Subject to economic regulation.
Borrowing	Borrowing undertaken by Council e.g., by LGFA with water activity groups meeting their share of financing costs.
Balance Sheet Treatment	On balance sheet
Revenue	Continues through combination of general/targeted rates and financial/development contributions.
Advantages	· Local knowledge and close connection to communities. · No need for Statement of Expectations. · Avoids initial establishment costs (although templates anticipated in the December Bill will likely lessen costs). · Avoids debate with other councils about asset condition, cross-subsidisation, etc.
Disadvantages	· Debt limit for Council remains at 280% (1 July 2025) (current 285%) as opposed to water organisation which can have 500% debt to revenue. · Lacks single focus on delivering water services. · More layers of Council decision making than legally independent structures — potentially an issue with higher regulation, ring fencing, etc. · Less commercial or nimble/agile due to compliance with LGA and not being a separate legal entity. · Possibility of no specialist expertise at governance level (but could be obtained through committees/subcommittees). · In-house entity more subject to politics of the day. · Fails to capture scale benefits and access to specific expertise. · Less attractive as a specialised entity to attract specialist staff. · Less connected nationally and internationally with peer organisations therefore hindering the modernisation of service opportunities and tailoring of the operating model to suit customer experience expectations.

Single CCO

Ownership	· Limited liability company 100% owned by Council-Ownership arrangements and rights set out in constitution.
Governance	· Council appoints and removes board members. · Governed by independent, professional directors who are responsible for all operational and financial decisions.
Strategic Direction	· Shareholding council issues Statement of Expectations. · Water organisation prepares Water Services Strategy.
Accountability	· Water organisation must act consistently with statutory objectives. · Reports regularly to shareholders on performance (e.g., quarterly). · Must produce annual report containing audited financial statements. · Subject to economic regulation.
Borrowing	Borrowing via Council from LGFA directly supported by Council guarantee or uncalled capital.
Balance Sheet Treatment	On balance sheet
Revenue	December Bill to include ability to assess, set and collect water services charges and ability to identify which ratepayers to be charged for water services, as well as allow use of development contribution regime.
Advantages	· LGFA will support leverage up to equivalent of 500 percent of operating revenues. · Corporate structure and governance: o Single focus on setting direction and overseeing delivery of water services. o Competency-based board comprising professional directors. o Appointments committee ensures relevant perspectives brought to director appointment process (flexibility to appoint mana whenua, community or consumer representatives). o Directors’ duties (including under Companies Act 1993) apply. · Must give effect to statement of expectations (if consistent with CCO’s purpose and statutory objectives) but otherwise less subject to politics of the day. · Accountability to council shareholder via regular reporting and annual reporting. · Potentially more agile than in-house as not subject to full LGA and largely independent, less decision-making delays as less layers. Quicker response to market fluctuations and managing operational risks. · More attractive to staff as a specialised entity and less barriers to potentially modernise the customer experience.
Disadvantages	· Fails to capture scale benefits including access to expertise (as opposed to multi council). · Accountability to consumers for service delivery potentially blurred if CCO not asset-owning.

Multi-Council CCO

Ownership	· Limited liability company with share allocation agreed between shareholding councils. · Councils jointly approve Constitution.
Governance	· Shareholder Council established to appoint and remove board members. · Governed by independent, professional directors who are responsible for all operational and financial decisions.
Strategic Direction	· Parent councils jointly issue Statement of Expectations. · Water organisation prepares a Water Services Strategy.
Accountability	· Water organisation must act consistently with statutory objectives. · Reports regularly to shareholders on performance (e.g., quarterly). · Must produce annual report containing audited financial statements. · Subject to economic regulation.
Borrowing/Balance Sheet Treatment	· Borrows via LGFA if parent council provides guarantee and satisfies LGFA lending requirements / Contingent liability (impact on council credit rating depends on council and water organisation revenue and debt). · Can borrow from banks and/or capital markets without council support, subject to achieving investment grade credit rating (challenging for some regions) / Contingent liability (unlikely to impact council credit rating).
Revenue	December Bill to include ability to assess, set and collect water services charges and ability to identify which ratepayers to be charged for water services as well as allow use of development contribution regime.
Advantages	· LGFA will support leverage up to equivalent of 500 percent of operating revenues (assuming still meet qualifying criteria for LGFA). · Corporate structure and governance: o Largely the same as for single council CCO (However, added complexity of shareholder council). · Must give effect to statement of expectations (if consistent with CCO’s purpose and statutory objectives) but otherwise less subject to politics of the day. · Accountability to council shareholders via regular reporting and annual reporting. Sets own budgets and controls risk plus accountable to communities. · Increased scale, potentially covering entire regions, may attract higher quality directors and staff (e.g. Watercare). · Less layers/barriers to modernising the customer experience.
Disadvantages	· Added complexity of shareholder council plus possible difficulties in prioritisation of investment. · Multi-council ownership could complicate decision-making for setting statement of expectations. · Accountability to consumers for service delivery potentially blurred if CCO not asset-owning.

Morrison Low Report Recommendation

92 As shown below, the Morrison Low Report recommends the multi-council option. However, some data limitations exist as was found under the previous Governments’ model by the previous National Transition Unit of the DIA. Should Council decide to proceed further with this option this is also subject to any participating councils proceeding.

93 Conclusions set out in the Morrison Low Report as commissioned by the Regional Working Group (refer Attachment E) include:

“Demonstrates that there are clear benefits for the Otago and Southland regions to establish an Otago Southland WSE to provide three waters services to its communities in the future.

The benefits of such an arrangement will be experienced in a relatively short time frame for many communities; three waters charges are expected to be lower by 2036 for up to 84% of the regions’ population through an Otago Southland WSE than under the existing service delivery model. More importantly, these benefits are likely to be enduring, with 30 year modelling indicating that future generations will also be financially better off under an Otago Southland Water Service Entity.

For those communities where the financial benefits of an Otago Southland Water Service Entity are not as great, there may be opportunities to transition at a slower pace than other councils. This may include entering into contractual arrangements with an Otago Southland WSE to provide professional services, the extent and scope of which may be able to be increased over time.”

OPTIONS

94 Staff present the following four options for Council to consider for a Short List:

a) Option One – Shortlist three base models (and add-on(s) if required)

i) Shortlist three base models — In-House Delivery, Single CCO, and Regional Multi Council CCO (subject to other participants proceeding further); and

ii) Optional add-on(s) subject to further analysis.

b) Option Two – Shortlist two base models (and add-on(s) if required)

i) Shortlist two base models – In-House Delivery and Single CCO; and

ii) Optional add-on(s) subject to further analysis.

c) Option Three – Shortlist two base models (and add-on(s) if required)

i) Shortlist two base models – In-House Delivery and Regional Multi Council CCO (subject to other participants proceeding further); and

ii) Optional add-on(s) subject to further analysis.

d) Option Four – No shortlist.

95 While staff have developed the above four options based primarily on the Legally Required Options, Council is able to include in addition to Option One, Two or Three, any other legally compliant base model.

96 In addition to the decision on the base model, staff have also presented the option to include “add-on(s)” to a base model. Add-ons would be subject to further analysis by staff and further consideration by Council.

97 Staff are recommending the Shortlist be a maximum of two or three base models given resource and time constraints in arranging further analysis to meet the timings shown in the Timeline.

Option One – Recommended – Shortlist Three Base Models – In-House Delivery, Single CCO, and Regional Multi Council CCO (subject to other participants proceeding further), with the option, of any add-on(s) subject to further analysis.

98 Under this option, Council would:

a) Shortlist three base models:

i) In-house Delivery;

ii) Single CCO; and

iii) Regional Multi-Council CCO.

b) Include any optional “add-on(s)” subject to further analysis.

c) Direct staff to arrange further detailed analysis on three base models (particularly financial analysis) and any optional add-on(s) to report further to Council in early 2025.

Advantages

· Efficient and more manageable – Less staff time/resources to analyse three options (as compared with the long list).

· Allows staff to focus on the shortlist in detail.

· More options available for the decision in principle in early 2025.

· Preserves Council’s ability to progress any negotiations/discussions with other local authorities. This is important given that other local authorities are also yet to finalise their shortlist for consultation.

· This option is prudent from a process perspective.

Disadvantages

· Requires more staff time/resource in arranging further analysis and assessing a regional multi-Council CCO is potentially complex.

· Regional Multi-Council CCO subject to other participants willingness to proceed.

Option Two – Shortlist Two Base Models – In-House Delivery and Single CCO with the option, of any add-on(s) subject to further analysis.

99 Under this option, Council would:

a) Shortlist two base models:

i) In-house Delivery; and

ii) Single CCO.

b) Include any optional “add-on(s)” subject to further analysis.

c) Direct staff to arrange further detailed analysis on both base models (particularly financial analysis) and any optional add-on(s) to report further to Council in early 2025.

Advantages

· Efficient and more manageable — Less staff time/resource to analyse two options.

· The two base Models under this option do not rely on the willingness or otherwise of other participants.

Disadvantages

· Limits options.

· It is arguably too early in the process to remove the Regional Multi-Council CCO as an option, particularly given the Morrison Low report.

Option Three – Shortlist Two Base Models – In-House Delivery and Regional Multi Council CCO (subject to other participants proceeding further) with the option, of any add-on(s) subject to further analysis.

100 Under this option, Council would:

a) Shortlist two base models:

i) In-house Delivery; and

ii) Regional Multi-Council CCO.

b) Include any optional “add-on(s)” subject to further analysis.

c) Direct staff to arrange further detailed analysis on both base models (particularly financial analysis) and any optional add-on(s) to report further to Council in early 2025.

Advantages

· Efficient and more manageable — Less staff time/resource to analyse two options.

Disadvantages

· Limits options.

· Regional Multi-Council CCO subject to other participants willingness to proceed.

· It is arguably too early in the process to remove the Single CCO as an option.

Option Four – No Short List

101 Under this option, Council would:

a) Not short list any particular model keeping all options on table for a decision in principle in early 2025.

b) Direct staff to arrange further detailed analysis on all possible models (particularly financial analysis) to report further to Council on in early 2025.

Advantages

· More options available for the decision in principle in early 2025.

Disadvantages

· Requires significantly more staff time/resource in arranging further analysis.

· Unlikely to be feasible to provide detailed analysis on all the long list options. Will require time to be spent on options that Council potentially has no interest in pursuing.

· Potentially difficult to achieve legislated timeframes and provide analysis.

· Regional Multi-Council CCO subject to other participants willingness to proceed.

NEXT STEPS

102 Staff will:

a) Arrange and undertake further detailed analysis (particularly financial analysis) on whatever Short List options Council decide.

b) Report back to full Council in early 2025 with further analysis on the Short List options identified.

c) Continue discussions with other parties including Mana Whenua to enable Council to make future decisions on the proposed Model.

Signatories

Author:

Nadia McKenzie - In-House Legal Counsel

Karilyn Canton - Chief In-House Legal Counsel

Authoriser:

David Ward - General Manager, 3 Waters and Transition

Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This report enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities and promotes the social, economic environmental and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Economic Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	✔
3 Waters Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Future Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

This report has been prepared with reference to the Dunedin strategic framework.

Māori Impact Statement

Council is required to consult with Mana Whenua under both sections 77(1)(c) and section 81 of the LGA 2002 given both references are included under section 60 of the Preliminary Act. Further section 14(1)(d) of the LGA 2002 also provides that a local authority should provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to its decision-making processes. The report highlights engagement to date.

Sustainability

Financial sustainability of local government water services is a key objective of the Government’s ‘Local Water Done Well’ policy. The Preliminary Act is designed to implement this policy and ensure delivery of water services is financially sustainable.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are significant implications for the LTP and Annual Plan, and the associated documents. This will be discussed further in a subsequent report.

Financial considerations

Financial implications relating to the Model will be provided in detail in a subsequent report.

Significance

The matters discussed in this report are considered high in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Any water services delivery models will be the subject of public consultation.

Engagement – external

There will be engagement with other territorial authorities and mana whenua.

Engagement — internal

Staff from Legal, 3 Waters, and the Executive Leadership Team have contributed to this report.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks related to this report.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no specific implications for Community Boards, although the LWDW reform will affect all areas.

General subject of the matter to be considered	Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution	Reason for Confidentiality
C1 Confirmation of the Confidential Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting - 30 October 2024 - Public Excluded	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	.
C2 Waste Futures - Commercial Matters	S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C3 Major Event Proposal	s48(1)(d) Check to make report confidential.	s48(1)(d) The exclusion of the public from the part of the meeting is necessary to enable the local authority to deliberate in private on its decision or recommendation.	Securing this event will be competitive and the report's financial details are therefore sensitive. If disclosed publically, the risk of being outbid and hindering the success of securing co-funding will increase..
C4 South Dunedin Library and Community Complex Leasing Options Report	S7(2)(b)(ii) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C5 Better Off Funding - Reallocation	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. S7(2)(b)(ii) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C6 Better Off Funding - Department of Internal Affairs Agreement	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. S7(2)(b)(ii) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C7 Notice of Motion - Enterprise Dunedin	S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

	Title	Page
A ⇩	Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting held on 30 October 2024	17

Author:	Kevin Mechen - Alcohol, Psychoactive Substances and Gambling Advisor
Authoriser:	Robert West - General Manager Corporate Services

Author:	Sharon Bodeker - Special Projects Manager
Authoriser:	Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer